A review of mine land rehabilitation outcomes: Culture, procurement and practice

Land rehabilitation transcends the mere establishment of vegetation across disturbed landscapes; it should be conceptualised as a specialised ecological reconstruction process. This process necessitates a long-term perspective on the success of land repurposing. It requires a continuum of inputs specified and managed by a dedicated and qualified custodian to ensure the sustained economic viability and ecological sustainability of the land. Based on the authors’ combined experience and field observations over more than five decades, they advocate for an urgent shift away from traditional land rehabilitation practices toward a paradigm centred on land capability reconstruction and active stewardship. The prevailing rehabilitation culture has overly simplified the process to a mere revegetation exercise, which is fundamentally incompatible with the comprehensive requirements for sustainable land capability. While the regulatory framework provides valuable guidance for obtaining a mine’s social license to operate, a paradigm reset is essential. Mining companies must prioritise rehabilitation quality, set achievable sustainability goals, and establish clear pathways and milestones to meet relinquishment criteria. Currently, the status quo view—a model reliant on outsourced contracting and agricultural approaches—is that mine rehabilitation is a one-time intervention rather than a complex, systemic, and long-term process. This perspective presents significant challenges, as the success of ecological interventions can only be accurately assessed over extended timeframes, often spanning decades. Shortsighted rehabilitation specifications, coupled with practitioners operating within agricultural decision frameworks, frequently overlook the necessity for integrated rehabilitation expertise and the scientific foundation essential for designing and implementing effective ecological outcomes. A lack of long-term monitoring information impedes the required adaptive management of rehabilitated systems and, therefore, delays the transition towards final land use. This short approach costs the mining industry millions annually, often without recognising the inadequacies in long-term liability mitigation and the substandard ecological success achieved. The disconnect between procurement processes, the qualifications of service providers, and the unclear pathways to relinquishment can impede successful rehabilitation outcomes, frequently undermining progress toward sustainability milestones. Unless there is a fundamental reset of the land rehabilitation culture, pursuing sustainability will remain an elusive and perhaps impossible objective. Consequently, mining companies may hesitate to fully commit to sustainable land rehabilitation practices, as the prospects for relinquishment and final closure remain uncertain at best.