Regulating Mine Rehabilitation and Closure on Indigenous Held Lands: Insights from the Regulated Resource States of Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Countless environmental, social, and economic issues can stem from poor mine closure and post-mining land use planning practices. Such post-extractive landscapes have a disproportionate effect on local Indigenous communities that continue to live in these often remote areas on their traditional lands, with such peoples only recently being able to document and bring their values and stories to closure, rehabilitation, and post-mining land use policy. A strong regulatory environment is the often suggested response to such concerns, and this chapter examines the regulation of mine rehabilitation and closure (MR&C) practices in the developed resource states of Canada and Australia. Analysis of current regulation and policy along with examples from MR&C practice demonstrate that the regulatory state is failing to ensure social, economic, cultural, and environmentally safe landscapes for local Indigenous people on whose lands these mines were situated. This research highlights recent reform in both jurisdictions, primarily designed to limit state liability for abandoned mines, and the impact of that reform upon the influence and inclusion of Indigenous peoples’ interests and rights in MR&C. The chapter highlights the common structural, institutional, political and resource challenges that Indigenous peoples across Australia and Canada face in ensuring that their lands and country are effectively and safely rehabilitated, and argues that having a comprehensive regulatory environment is not enough. Greater Indigenous engagement, management, control and ownership of MR&C processes is required if we are to see better outcomes for local people in post-extractive landscapes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".