Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697644026719.pdf (Australia)
Centre for Mine Site Restoration (an ARC Industrial Transformational Training Centre) submission to the inquiry into the rehabilitation of mining and resource projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilities Authors: Professor Kingsley Dixon, John Curtin Distinguished Professor, ARC Centre for Mine Site Restoration; Dr Renee Young, Centre Manager, ARC CMSR; Dr Adam Cross, Senior Scientist, ARC CMSR.
Restoration sits at the heart of Australia’s ability to sustainably and responsibly exploit its mineral resources, and a lack of restoration capability not only jeopardises the economic viability of the mining industry (an estimated $1B of proposed projects have been delayed or rejected on the basis of environmental impacts and failure to deliver effective restoration outcomes), but also places our unique biodiversity and particularly threatened species at risk.
The lack of sufficient technology to deliver cost-effective restoration of disturbed landscapes will result in major and lasting impacts on the mining industry’s social and environmental license to mine.

Note: this document draws upon the recently published Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia (2016) and soon to published second edition (www.seraustralasia.com), and the Offsets Policy Statement of the Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia.

Terms of reference B.


The adequacy of existing regulatory, policy and institutional arrangements to ensure adequate and timely rehabilitation.

A central constraint to both the planning and implementation of projects ensuring mining and resource ventures meet their regulatory requirements is the widespread confusion surrounding the restoration expectations.
Simplistic and often vague regulatory conditions are commonly included in Ministerial Statements (e.g., ‘restored using best practice’, ‘flora and vegetation are re-established with not less than 70 percent species composition’), which implies that there is insufficient knowledge available to adequately plan for restoration.

This has in turn led to uncertainty throughout industry in exactly what they should aspire to in successful mine closure.
A problem of definition: Often restoration (the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged or destroyed) is interchanged with rehabilitation (the process of reinstating a level of ecosystem functionality on degraded sites without necessarily reinstating a pre-mined ecosystem’s biodiversity).
Yet these two processes achieve very different outcomes with the community and regulators expecting recovery towards restoration as the process to be adopted when natural ecosystems are mined.
The creation of safe, stable and non-polluting landforms alone, while a critical component of the mine closure process and regulatory expectations, does not constitute restoration (this includes concepts laid out in other submissions to the Senate such as fluvial geomorphic rehabilitation); although this stage in the life of mine process is among the costliest, and the design and heterogeneity of the final landform should be carefully planned to lay the foundations for restoration success, it is simply the first step along a restoration trajectory.
A problem of lack of process and direction: The distinction between rehabilitation and restoration have for the first time been defined in National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia (SERA 2016).

These Standards outline world-leading best practice for ecological restoration based on six key guiding principles – these are the very principles that should guide post-mine rehabilitation.
Now adapted as an international edition and launched at the IUCN in Cancun Mexico in December 2016 as the world’s first Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration.

These documents are being adopted as the basis for regulatory expectations in the mining industry with industry comfortable that a detailed, unambiguous and auditable process is now available to guide the expectations of the community, regulators and industry.
A key distinction between the two processes is the use of a native reference ecosystem to guide the composition and structure of a restored mine site versus purely functional attributes in rehabilitation.
Page 1 of 6 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 64 A problem of lack of scientific certainty: Ecological restoration is the return of functional (the roles and processes that arise from living and non-living components of an ecosystem), representative (similarity to an appropriate real or notional benchmark community), and resilient (capacity to recover and persist following disturbances) ecosystems on post-mining landforms.
The technical capacity and science to achieve this for many Australian mine sites is limited and is a key constraint in achieving proven, cost-effective and scalable solutions in restoration.
Too often, once a stable, non-polluting landform has been constructed, industry approaches restoration as a ‘gardening exercise’ with the expectation that simply spreading seeds or planting tubestock will result in the establishment of functionally appropriate, ecologically resilient and biodiverse native vegetation indicative of a native reference site.

As history shows, across Australia this approach has been met with almost universal failure.

Why is this a problem?


Australia is a megadiverse continent with a globally unique flora and fauna characterised by high levels of turnover at both local and regional scales, and a universal solution is simply not appropriate.
Crucially, mining operations typically target unique landforms (e.g., banded ironstone ridges) and areas of high biological diversity in old and climatically stable landscapes (e.g., Western Australia’s kwongan), and the biotic assemblages of these ecosystems typically comprise complex suites of well-adapted plant, microbial and animal communities, many of which are ecological specialists.
For these species the environment of a post-mining landform can represent an exceptionally unfamiliar and challenging substrate, and the time scales required for natural weathering processes to mitigate problem factors such as nutrient stoichiometry and soil pH (hundreds to tens of thousands of years) are at odds with the typical 5–7 year regulatory mine closure expectations.
There is also a clear need to protect old growth ecosystems which provide habitat critical for many of Australia’s threatened animals (black cockatoos; Leadbeater’s possum) through provision of hollows, forage and roosting sites that are only occur in trees from 250-500 years old.
Although there are a handful of notable exceptions, it is clear that in Australia the majority of mining restoration projects are failing to deliver on the return of functional, representative, biodiverse and resilient ecosystems that are based on a suitable ‘reference community’.

In our research programs it is clear that the following reasons singly or in combination contribute to the lack of suitable closure in the mining industry in Australia: i. ii.

iii.

iv.

v. vi.
iii.

iv.

v. vi.

Inadequate biodiversity surveys: defining pre-mining biodiversity patterns and ecosystem function, and hence inform environmental impact assessment that enable the setting of appropriate restoration targets based on an appropriate native reference ecosystem.

Insufficient, inconsistent, and uncoordinated supply of high quality, genetically appropriate seed.
A lack of biological and technical knowledge to effectively store, germinate, and deliver seeds to restoration sites in a manner that will maximize seedling establishment.

– ‘on demand’ germination is not achievable for many species without research with most mine sites achieving less than 10% germination success i.e.

90% of wild collected seed is wasted.


Limited understanding of the physiology of plant establishment and the environmental attributes required to support plant growth in altered soil substrates and restoration environments critical to ensure climate- proofed restoration is achieved.

A lack of information on key factors necessary to provide for the establishment of sustainable ecosystems that are resilient and support native wildlife including rare and threatened species.
A critical shortage of restoration researchers trained in the skills to overcome these impediments for the resources sector.

vii.

One size does not fit all in mine site restoration – a gold tailings facility will be very different in rehabilitation approaches in comparison to a coal mine or iron ore waste rock dump.

Translation research is rarely undertaken to adapt, improve and master site and ecosystem specific restoration technologies.
Terms of reference C. The adequacy and transparency of financial mechanisms, including assurances, bonds and funds, to ensure that mining and resources projects are rehabilitated without placing a burden on public finances.

Currently, the costs of restoration are not being adequately determined prior to regulatory approval being granted.
A full and complete understanding of the costs of restoration, which will vary markedly between landforms, Page 2 of 6 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 64 operations and regions, must be determined and presented during initial mine planning and be included transparently as part of the approvals process.
Approvals have been granted for projects with little or no understanding of the restoration requirements of the final landform (e.g., the specific chemico-physical and hydrological properties of waste material), despite a general lack of understanding about the implications this might pose for establishing representative native plant communities.

Approvals should not be granted on a ‘mine first, figure out how to restore later’ approach.
Costing should also consider the need for rigorous pre-mining survey to establish and understand reference landforms and communities, and determine the expected properties of waste products and how these might constrain vegetation establishment.

Additionally, costing must consider the need for monitoring right through until the point of full recovery in restoration projects, and explore which monitoring techniques provide a suitable and accurate indication of restoration trajectory.
The traditional ‘bond’ system and alternatives such as the Mining Rehabilitation Fund (MRF) (WA) have been unsuccessful in both protecting our national land and biodiversity assets and ensuring sufficient funding to off-set company failures to restore.

For example the collapse in 2015 of the Ellendale diamond mine in the biodiverse Kimberly region of WA has left the State of WA with a rehabilitation liability of ca $35M that is not affordable based on the reserves in the MRF.
Similar scenarios such as the 2,200 square km footprint of BHP in the Pilbara are not capable of being financially regulated through bonds and sureties.

Ensuring regulatory approval provides greater investment guidance on the environmental liability of a mine needs to occur from the outset of a mine proposal and that progressive, informed and timely restoration/rehabilitation is undertaken.
Investment advisors in industry must account for the overall environmental liability of a mine even when timeframes may be inter-generational.

Terms of reference G. The potential social, economic and environmental impacts, including on matters of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act, of inadequate rehabilitation.

The potential environmental impacts of inadequate ecological restoration are clear and well-documented.
Of particular concern is that our ability to return some of the most at-risk species within our globally significant biodiversity, the ecological specialists, endemic and range-restricted taxa, is constrained by a lack of knowledge of their ecology and biology and thus these species are frequently poorly represented in restoration projects.
This is also true at a community scale; many species and communities identified as being of conservation significance have been identified as such on the basis of limited knowledge.

There is often little or no understanding of the ecological requirements and complex biology of these species and assemblages, and yet approvals are granted for projects with significant impacts upon species and populations prior to adequate research being undertaken to resolve this knowledge gap.
The task confronting policy makers, industry, and land managers is to find strategies of biodiversity management that are compatible with the ongoing national imperative for economic development.

Expansion capability and the sustained prosperity of Australia’s resources sector is ultimately tied to the capacity of industry to meet regulatory requirements for functional and biodiverse restored ecosystems at landscape scales.

Regulatory assessment of proposals are commonly reviewed on a case by case basis.
The true impacts on a species or community during the environmental impact assessment phase is often misguided due to a lack of a cumulative impact assessment, considering the effects of previous projects in the region.
Page 3 of 6 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 64 Watchpoint: Old growth systems such as Australia’s globally unique old growth forests and woodlands provide forage, roosting and nest/habitation capabilities that CANNOT be reinstated through rehabilitation, restoration or by use of artificial nest boxes.
Such old growth systems if restored would require 200-500 years for trees to be of sufficient structure and agedness to support hollow creation and canopy dimensions capable of protecting and housing rare animals such as Australia’s rare black cockatoos, Leadbeater’s possum etc.

Such animals are in critical decline and require habitat support within decades to prevent extinction.
Terms of reference H. The potential social, economic and environmental benefits of adequate rehabilitation, including job opportunities in communities affected by job losses in the mining and resources sectors.

Restoration industries are potentially major employers, and international standards for restoration note a ripple effect of social and economic benefit to the broader community results from effective rehabilitation.
Mining development can be reconciled with successful restoration, but only with targeted investment to generate industry ready professionals with the skills to research and develop new biodiversity management strategies and the technologies for the successful re-instatement of resilient, functional, and representative plant communities.
Delivering restoration at a scale that achieves timely and cost-effective mine-closure capability will require the training of new scientists to deliver new approaches to science-driven innovation and technology.

Effective restoration solutions, and scientists trained in their development and application, are needed now if resource development and Australia’s prosperity is to be assured and the resource sector continues to operate with community and environmental confidence in the long-term.
Ensuring restoration projects are managed through to completion would result in ongoing job opportunities in local communities, and may offer these communities a unique opportunity to engage in environmental stewardship.

Monitoring and remediation of restoration sites is required until the ecosystem can be determined to be completely restored; the time scale required for these activities continues well past the cessation of mining and would support both regional and local employment.
The case of Karara Mining who are developing Australia’s first mining based native seed farm using a local indigenous workforce is one example of how substantial, enduring and authentic social benefits arise when the mining industry focuses on restoration excellence.

Terms of reference I.

International examples of effective rehabilitation policy and practice.

There are examples of outstanding excellence in restoration and rehabilitation particularly in the German and some US (eg prairies) systems.
However these are not within a mining context.

The Committee’s attention is drawn to the recently launched International Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (ser.org) and to the case studies presented as a companion series for the National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration (seraustralasia.com).

Terms of reference J.

Proposals for reform of rehabilitation of mining and resources projects.
The Australian mining and resources industry operates in the only industrialised ‘megadiverse’ country.

Australia possesses the educational depth, regulatory and social environment, specialist knowledge, and national wealth required to study and conserve its unique biodiversity, and there should be both an economic and ecological obligation to ensure that the community and regulatory expectations placed upon industry reflect this privilege.
A simple ‘one size fits all’ solution is not adequate to capture the complex requirements of restoration projects on national or even state scales, as each mining project will inevitably provide a different scenario dependent upon Page 4 of 6 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 64 climate and geology, the composition of waste material generated, the diversity, composition and complexity of pre- existing plant and animal communities, and the economic situation of the region.
The timely restoration of functional, biodiverse, representative, and self-sustaining native ecosystems on post-mining landscapes undoubtedly represents an enormous challenge to the mining industry and restoration practitioners.

We propose regulation and implementation of restoration projects will require reform: i. ii.

iii.

iv.

v. There is a clear need for efficient and effective approaches to achieving pre-mining biodiversity context and ecosystem function.
Effective pre-mining survey enables restoration components to be integrated within an operational framework and provides invaluable data for all components of the restoration program.
Mine waste material production and storage must undergo a paradigm shift in perspective from simple waste management to the production of remade substrates capable of being developed into functional soils, with a new paradigm of collaborative and multidisciplinary science-driven innovation required to ensure ecosystems can be effectively restored.
The regulatory expectations of closure time frames are misaligned with the time frames required for natural processes to alleviate substrate hostility, and methods of accelerating these processes represent perhaps the only opportunity to achieve timely restoration success.

Scale and context are key drivers of research priorities for restoration.
Thus there is a clear need to develop proven, cost-effective, and scalable restoration solutions on an industry by industry basis employing the principles of progressive adaptive management and strategic investment in research.

The mining industry must strive to create restoration approaches that deliver the compliant level of plant species return in one pass, that produce the same outcome at any scale (local to landscape), and that deliver a predictable and replicable outcome.

vii.

vi.
vii.

vi.

Monitoring of restoration trajectory, and the point at which restoration can be considered successful, must be adequately planned for and executed from the mine planning stage through to the point of full ecological recovery.

There is a clear need for more investigative monitoring, such as the use of drone and spatial based technologies to remotely assess community diversity, performance and resilience to feed-back to the regulatory process and industry.
These emerging technologies promise outstanding opportunities for industry to improve the process of adaptive management.

viii.

A more strategic science-practice interface is required for industry to aggregate and apply appropriate and effective knowledge and learning in their site-specific situations.

Importantly industry requires a ‘restoration ombudsman’ approach where technological limitations in restoration are understood before a mine approval is given.
Page 5 of 6 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 64 Figure 1.

Progress evaluation ‘recovery wheel’.

This template allows a manager to illustrate the degree to which the project is achieving its ecosystem goals over time.

A practitioner with a high level of familiarity with the goals and achievements of the project can shade the segments for each sub-attribute after formal or informal evaluation.
Notes: Sub-attribute labels can be adjusted or more added to better represent a particular ecosystem.

The scores must be based on informal or formal monitoring indicators for the project.

These should be identified at the outset of the project to provide ecologically meaningful information about the sub-attributes and attributes being finally evaluated.

Page 6 of 6 Rehabilitation of mining and resources projects as it relates to Commonwealth responsibilitiesSubmission 64