Abstract

Mining is inherently a  temporary “use” of the land, and in many jurisdictions, operators are required to define a post mining “end land use”.  British Columbia’s Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation (EMLI) defines progressive reclamation as “a reclamation activity undertaken concurrently with mining activities which contributes to the end land use objectives of the site”¹. The power of language is that official terminology used within an industry creates a shared perspective built on common agreements and qualifications, but it can also be a barrier when communicating between different groups with differing backgrounds and systems of value. As closure practitioners, we must become experts in translating systems of values between groups, from shareholders to stakeholders to rightsholders. We need to be able to sit comfortably or uncomfortably at the center of all the contending interests of a given project. By understanding the value systems of all impacted stakeholders and Indigenous rightsholders, we can translate the importance of specific risks and opportunities to decision makers.

The term “end land use” discounts historic relationships with the land and its future potential to the people who live there and call it home. Indigenous rightsholders and impacted communities all share a continuous connection to the land that began before mining and will continue for generations afterwards. To “use” the land to an “end” implies an interruption in our relationship and neglects opportunities for creating new sources of security and stewardship. Rather than designing and permitting mining projects to “end”, we can change our perspective to stewardship of the land throughout its many iterations and phases. The term “end land use” has an unconscious and limiting effect on the way we plan for mine closure and how we define technical objectives. Rather than considering the long-term legacy of the landscape and following through with impactful socio-economic and cultural development, we fall short of the greater value of our natural resources by aiming only to the end a phase.

Embedded into the Life of Mine from early planning through extractive operation and beyond closure, progressive reclamation must consider the physical reconnection between mine affected lands and the surrounding ecological balance, as well as the reconnection between the land and its peoples. By improving the terminology attributed to mining activities, we can guide improvement of our principles and methods.

This presentation will showcase how the design and permitting process at the Eskay Creek project has been guided and redefined through co-development with the Tahltan Nation. This alternative approach goes beyond progressive reclamation activities by integrating land stewardship and respect for the interconnectedness of the land into the full mine lifecycle. By working to apply these principles within a consent-based framework, Eskay Creek has developed a shared vision for the land that goes beyond the goal of reaching “end land use”.

¹  https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/mineral-exploration-mining/documents/reclamation-and-losure/regional_reclamation_plan_guidance_emli_2021_11_24.pdf