Mine permit is the legal permit required for extraction of resources. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) assesses the anticipated socio-environmental impact of the project. Finally, the closure liability is the responsibility of the operators to rehabilitate the site following the end of extraction process. The three approaches aim at balancing development and environmental sustainability.
EIA is the key component in the permitting process. As part of the initial approval process, the operators are required to develop a closure plan within the EIA to gain permission to operate (Ware et al., 2012). Early identification of the risks is achieved in this way. Nonetheless, coordination of EIA procedures with closure planning is challenging in institutional terms (Morrison-Saunders et al., 2016).
Even though there are existing frameworks, enforcing mine permitting requirements proves challenging in developing countries. Poor institutional capacity and demands for quick economic development lead to gaps in regulation. The lack of enforceable performance standards makes the closure plan unimportant at times (Ware et al., 2012). As a result, extraction licenses can be issued without proper environmental provisions.
The failure to enforce mine permitting regulations leads to closure liability risks. Closure liability ensures that the cost of rehabilitation lies with the mining company. Regrettably, quick closures caused by the liquidation of corporations reveal the weaknesses in these regulations, which lead to environmental pollution and socioeconomic challenges (Mpanza et al., 2021). Governments need to ensure financial assurance along with the permit.
The way to deal with this is to establish new policies for mine planning. Contemporary approaches are departing from purely economic factors and adopting socio-environmental factors that will inherently involve certain costs from the very beginning of operations. It ensures that the firms can afford future cleanup since it is obligatory to factor in costs through legislation (Oliveros-Sepúlveda et al., 2025).
To conclude, the efficiency of permitting, EIA, and closures depends significantly on institutional backing. Although the principles behind the regulations are strong, strict enforcement is necessary to prevent the outsourcing of mining costs. Through the strict application of EIA rules and fixing of liability for closure, the countries can save their ecosystems and communities.
References
Morrison-Saunders, A., McHenry, M. P., Rita Sequeira, A., Gorey, P., Mtegha, H., & Doepel, D. (2016). Integrating mine closure planning with environmental impact assessment: challenges and opportunities drawn from African and Australian practice. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 34(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2016.1176407
Mpanza, M., Adam, E., & Moolla, R. (2021). A critical review of the impact of South Africa’s mine closure policy and the winding-up process of mining companies. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 17. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v17i1.985
Oliveros-Sepúlveda, D., Bascompta-Massanés, M., & Franco-Sepúlveda, G. (2025). Environmental and Closure Costs in Strategic Mine Planning, Models, Regulations, and Policies. Resources, 14, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14030041
Ware, A., McCullough, C., Wilson-Clark, C., Witcomb, A., & Millgate, J. (2012). Closure planning in a developing country – a case study from the Phu Kham Mine, Laos, Southeast Asia. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mine Closure, 295–303. https://doi.org/10.36487/acg_rep/1208_27_mauric
