Getting Closure: Financing the Future of Positive Mining Legacy

Across the world, thousands of mining operations will enter closure in the next two decades. The question of what happens to mining developments once extraction stops – how closure is planned, financed, governed, and who should take responsibility – are defining issues for an industry facing fresh scrutiny amidst debates around a just energy transition.  

Earlier this year, TDi Sustainability was commissioned by Mining 2030 to develop a new definition of mining legacy. The aim is to help companies and investors re-imagine what responsible closure means, and to lay the groundwork for a mining sector that delivers durable value long after extraction ends. 

Why “legacy” matters now 

For decades, the mining industry has approached closure largely as the last line in the project plan. But legacy as a concept is broader and longer-lasting, capable of leaving both positive or negative impacts on communities and landscapes for decades. It describes the enduring social, environmental and economic footprint of a mine long after operations cease. The concept extends beyond the typical focus on environmental remediation to include local livelihoods, governance, cultural heritage and land use. A mine’s influence rarely ends at the fence line; its effects ripple across landscapes, supply chains and generations. 

Reframing closure as legacy means seeing it not as a terminal cost but rather a continuum of responsibility and opportunity for renewal. The timing could not be more urgent: the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) estimates that over 40% of its members’ sites will close in the next 10–20 years, just as hundreds of new projects will open to meet energy transition and other strategic mineral demands. How these two dynamics intersect will shape mining’s social licence for decades to come. 

The anatomy of a positive legacy 

Positive mining legacies do not emerge by accident. They depend on early planning, adequate funding, credible governance and shared vision elaborated through: 

• A roadmap for closure and post-closure transition integrating social, environmental and financial considerations from the earliest stages of project planning, with continuous stakeholder engagement. 

• A process of transformation enabling mined landscapes to contribute to planetary and community wellbeing through restoration, repurposing or re-industrialisation. 

• A governance framework assigning clear accountability across companies, regulators, financiers and communities, backed by transparent reporting. 

The ambition is to move from remediation to regeneration, whereby a mine’s closure strengthens rather than erodes local resilience. 

The financial fault line 

No mine can leave a positive legacy without secure funding for closure and post-closure obligations. Yet, history shows chronic under-provisioning. Closure costs are routinely underestimated, sometimes by 20% to 100%, and financial assurance obligations are inconsistent across jurisdictions.  

This financial gap leads to orphaned sites, stranded liabilities and reputational crises. It also affects investors directly, as unfunded closure liabilities can erode balance sheets, weaken credit ratings and depress valuations. In extreme cases they create what market observers call “decommissioning zombies,” otherwise known as companies whose socio-environmental obligations outweigh their market worth. 

Why investors should care 

For investors, mining legacy is an emerging frontier of ESG performance and an integral part of early-stage mine project due diligence. Strong legacy planning with adequate financial provisioning signals robust governance, more predictable liabilities and credible transition pathways. Weak or opaque closure planning, by contrast, raises red flags across every ESG dimension. 

Investors are increasingly shaping expectations by calling for:  

• Early integration of closure planning into project design and financing.  

• Public disclosure of closure cost estimate methodologies, rehabilitation liabilities and funding arrangements. 

• Independent verification of closure-cost estimates. 

• Regular auditing and transparent governance structures, especially in higher-risk jurisdictions. 

Well-capitalised closure plans not only de-risk portfolios but they also enable financiers to support companies that are visibly managing their environmental and social impact. 

Financing the future of mining legacy 

Innovative financial instruments are starting to bridge the divide between environmental accountability and capital markets. 

Decommissioning reserve funds and decommissioning bonds, developed in the energy sector, are now being studied for their relevance to mining. These mechanisms allow operators to pre-fund closure by setting aside contributions during the operational life of an asset. These funds are professionally managed, following diversified, ESG-aligned investment strategies. A useful comparison is to think of them as essentially pension schemes for industrial assets.  

Under models proposed by BNP Paribas, EDF, and others, proceeds from decommissioning bonds are ring-fenced within a reserve that invests in sustainable assets. Through a blend of matching assets, growth assets, and investment in innovation, these returns are then used to finance rehabilitation, repurposing, monitoring and longer-term socio-environmental initiatives once operations end. 

For mining companies, adapting these models could ensure that financial planning for legacies supports not only environmental rehabilitation but also community development and climate resilience.  

However, even the most sophisticated financial mechanism depends on credible cost modelling and governance. Independent review of closure estimates, realistic operational spending assumptions and transparent accounting are essential to prevent funds from being eroded by unanticipated expenditure or discounting practices that understate future costs. Equally vital is regulatory coherence.  

Countries such as Canada and Australia already mandate detailed closure plans backed by financial assurance, and others are catching up. Embedding financial responsibility from the earliest stages of project design can help align incentives and prevent transfer of liabilities to under-resourced operators or, ultimately, governments later in a mine’s life.   

From liability to legacy 

Mining 2030’s new definition positions legacy as a strategic outcome resulting from how responsibly a mine is planned, governed, financed and closed. It calls on companies and investors to view post-closure not as the end of extraction but rather the beginning of regeneration. 

Positive legacies are achievable. They require foresight, capital discipline, multi-stakeholder engagement and shared accountability. When closure is financed with intent and designed for transformation, mines can leave behind the foundations of thriving ecosystems and resilient communities. 

Get in touch 

TDi has decades of experience supporting investors and companies in the mining sector to embed sustainability into the heart of their operations, from corporate-level strategy to asset-level due diligence and implementation with “boots on the ground”. Get in touch to find out how we can help.