Tash Wilson: You've been listening to Transform by GHD. Big ideas, real impact. Welcome to Transform, tomorrow's thinking today. Real conversations on the innovation shaping businesses and our society.
Dave Clark: Welcome back Transform.
Tash Wilson: Today you're joining us for the final part of our two-part conversation on moving beyond mind closure. Today we're continuing the discussion with Dave Clark and Mary Kelly. Over to Dave to kick off part two of this discussion.
Dave Clark: One of the really strong themes in the Beyond Closure report that we did prepare was around treating social ⁓ closure as a core design input and just a downstream issue. Where do you think, Mary, organisations most commonly underestimate? that social and community dimension it comes to ⁓ and asset and site transition. ⁓
Mary Kelly: I think there's a few key aspects that we see like that relationship or that connection breakdown and that trust erode. we start engagement on things after we've already developed options. We've already constrained them. And I think the transparency of showing the options is what helps build that trust. You're building that. understanding of people talk about capacity, but you're really building knowledge and shared knowledge between the mining company and the community. And the other part you start to see is that there's a dialogue, there's conversation, but who has any real decision making authority? How does a community's voice actually count and matter? And you can see that in some places where community values are woven into the decision matrix. And so when a community sees what's important to them, their priorities, helping shape the decisions, their voice is counted. And probably the other piece we see is that asking communities to trust that outcome, but they haven't had any ownership in that. And so unless we create that continuity over time, we've lost that opportunity for long-term outcome.
Dave Clark: Yeah, great. Thanks, Mary. And I think to your point, the earlier the better. ⁓ I think an ongoing important consideration, particularly around First Nations engagements ⁓ and that Indigenous engagement piece is, is it at the time of a blank sheet, if you like, in terms determining options collectively, ⁓ or is around, you know, considering a long list of options and you've got that engagement and sense of buy-in and involvement in that process as well. either of those stages, certainly earlier then, ⁓ a done deal. The decision has been made and we're sort of ticking a box here and I'd like to think that we're far from that in terms of how we go about it. But ⁓ timing piece is really important as you've touched on. So there anything else you'd like to reflect on around... what it does look like to treat social closure as key and fundamental design input as well.
Mary Kelly: I think it comes up throughout various aspects. ⁓ Often I've seen, I guess, like you have one meeting to talk about a closure plan but it needs be iterative. Plans don't just pop up. They evolve based on input from lots of parties, looked at data consideration. And when we involve communities in that process, it shifts ⁓ the conversation. It might not shift, the outcome might not be the same at the end. It might be the same, we don't know. But being part of that process is a much different feeling. And so when we start looking at how we evaluate those decisions and we put like real values on the table, we understand what receptors are, not just to mining company ⁓ and players, ⁓ but to whom. to the land users, to users, ⁓ species that may be important? And what about the future use of the land? What priorities may the community have for that? So if we skip this step, we've optimized the system, but not the outcome for the people that ⁓ care about. And so when we put real options on the table, we create the space to ⁓ long-term liability decisions together. And we need to be explicit in those. We don't need to the information. We really need to talk about what are the risks? What are the costs? What does maintenance look like? How often? What would that be? And what are the failure modes? ⁓ transparency of that really informs the conversation. So people don't need to become technical hydrologists or different things like that. but they need to see the choices and have a voice in those choices. And I think there's an instinct to reduce before sharing, right? Like it's part of who we are ⁓ technical people. But when we do that, we create transparency. And when we don't create a definition of a trigger, that's a shared vision. And that all feeds into that long term, that legacy that we're talking about, that we're asking someone else to essentially hold.
Dave Clark: great reflections there too, and you're spot on, you can only reduce that uncertainty ⁓ so far and by a lot more mature around these engagements and being vulnerable, being open and honest, we'll just continue to build that trust and I thought you made a great point around ⁓ it's an ongoing it's an iterative process and we've got to honour that ⁓ in terms of our to those stakeholders as well. Do you have any other thoughts around how... Indigenous nations their expectations are changing around closure.
Mary Kelly: Well, from my perspective, in Canada, know, First Nations, Inuit communities, you have to it's part of the process. But there's a much different perspective when you are a mine owner. These are communities that you are now sharing the land with. so we've seen this evolution from very checkbox engagement, where it was... ⁓ more information sharing, that there's been a real evolution through the development of impact benefit agreements where you've seen a lot more participation and the sharing of the a mine site. You have individuals that are employed at the mine site. You have companies that are now forming and supporting the growth of that mine site. And then you have a bunch of spin-off businesses associated with that. So you have seen communities completely change and grow as part of this. And when you talk about the closure of a mine, where do those businesses go next? What is that opportunity? So there's a much different legacy conversation that needs to be had now too. And you're seeing increasingly more so that communities are looking for equity stakes and projects. So if you're an equity owner, you have a different position in on that. but they may also have priorities about how that land might be used into the future. And so how infrastructure at a mine site could be reutilized for other purposes. I think those are all really important considerations that can't be just left to the last minute. I think you see in Canada spaces where, former camps are reused in communities, you see repurposing of energy facilities, and these are all valuable pieces of infrastructure that can be brought on to a community as a very beneficial aspect, but have to be part of the conversation to define that.
Dave Clark: Clearly some really important changes are in that space ⁓ and as you say, some really examples ⁓ where a positive and lasting community benefit occur as So thank you.
Mary Kelly: So Dave, it's usually a lack of data, a lack of trust, or a lack of willingness in decision making. So where do you think things are falling in there?
Dave Clark: Yeah, it's a good question and we've spoken about a couple of those areas already in instances, I'd probably say all of the above. It's typically a sort of a combination. The trust is fundamental and I'd love to think that we are shifting from a historic trust deficit to a large extent. ⁓ I think ⁓
Mary Kelly: you
Dave Clark: Yes, there's uncertainty, suitable confidence in the data and ⁓ confidence trust are really key. I made to summit that you and I had the opportunity to participate in recently, one of the messages coming of... ICMM was one of those really key and organisations representing the mining companies I know, but around being ⁓ lot more open, providing open source data especially to increase that visibility and really drive that transparency and sharing of ⁓ data I think ⁓ for that will help. there is on occasion a lack of data that hasn't yet been that needs to be addressed in terms of some of those gaps. ⁓ But there's sufficient data to help make decisions on making it readily available ⁓ in that of public domain will be important. I think companies understand that and we're making some gains in that regard as well. ⁓ historically I'd like to consider that may have been a lack of decision making, clearly, and as you've indicated in terms of changing expectations, ⁓ that shared leadership, decision making ⁓ is really important. ⁓ other thing that I believe is fundamental this regard the I spoke about ICMM. but other country-based, whether it's MAC in Canada or ⁓ within Australia, or whether it's around the professional associations, in of CIM or SME in the US, or again, AUSIMM I think there's a role through those associations to help with the in the planning and execution of my enclosure, as well as the people side in terms of... setting standards that are expected of everyone, people and upskilling as well. So those sorts of things tie into a combination of data the engagement piece and decision making processes too.
Mary Kelly: Yeah, you touched on the trust, I think that's a theme, because when we were at Water and Mining, it's a very technical conference, and to see the themes of trust and collaboration woven through almost every session that I attended, I think that makes me really very optimistic about where things are going, and knowing that organizations like ICMM are helping backstop. that by giving guidance companies for path to follow. Every journey going to be different because every community going to be working at is different, ⁓ but it's giving some tools ⁓ to think about you could do different and do better.
Dave Clark: exactly, we discussed with ICMM ⁓ during that forum. What need to satisfy ourselves ⁓ with that those tools that you refer to being utilized, it's by their member companies or other organizations, some really good frameworks ⁓ and tools and ⁓ Let's make sure we're using those appropriately as well. Within the Beyond Closure report, we spoke about ⁓ sites into long-term assets. ⁓ touched on a couple of things earlier, but what that look like ⁓ in ⁓ for Mary?
Mary Kelly: I think it's something that is still relatively new in terms of a journey in most areas. There hasn't been that recognition that communities have a role to play when we start talking about closure. I think it's a sensitive conversation because ⁓ communities become reliant in some fashion ⁓ the economy that has been recreated by mine site, then it is a, you know, it's a challenging conversation to enter into and why it makes it so important that you're continuing that conversation. And by continuing that conversation, you allow for that early recognition of how you want to do that land use planning. Because if you're reshaping the landscape, once you remove infrastructure, how is that landscape going to be reshaped to benefit the communities? Maybe they have species that are of priority in terms of an importance to them. and maybe the specific habitat. But maybe there's infrastructure that the community can benefit. They want to see it left in place. They want to be able to utilize it. So how do you balance liability risks of a closed mine site with people wanting to use the land? It brings in how important that conversation is to look at both of the economics of that and the human health risk aspects of that. So that has to be part of all that planning discussion. And it can't be left to the point of, ⁓ well, we're done. We have this leftover. Are you interested? That's not the conversation we're at anymore. Maybe 20, 30 years ago, but that's not now.
Dave Clark: Yeah, no, exactly.
Mary Kelly: So I think when we start talking about what good looks like in terms of closure. we need to start looking at what that might look like in time to come. And so when closure isn't handled well, what that actually looks like from a community's perspective, what are you seeing, Dave?
Dave Clark: Well, think in those cases where it's not handled well, and hopefully as a collective that's something we can continue to avoid if you like, but where it's not handled well, mean, from a community perspective, you just don't get that sense of ownership and ⁓ of buy-in as we really need. And ⁓ in those cases, we don't give ourselves the opportunity to... realise the lasting community or environmental and social sort of benefits that we've spoken of today as well. So it's a missed opportunity for me in that regard. And ⁓ risk is ⁓ it all becomes too hard. It doesn't get executed or implemented as intended or as it could be. ⁓ You the chance of really... achieving that positive legacy and once again in that instance you're going to be left with a medium to long-term negative legacy site that hasn't been responsibly transitioned which as we opened up with has reflected poorly on the industry as a whole and it's something that together we've got to avoid, you know, we've certainly got to avoid because it's around that social license to close ⁓ and ⁓ given cyclic nature of the industry that'll ⁓ impact our ability to responsibly and achieve that license up front to develop new minds that are essential if you like to facilitating the whole energy transition well as the other benefits that come with that. So given the discussion we've just had, Mary, ⁓ what might that look like communities in five to 10 years' time?
Mary Kelly: I think that's something I would love to work on, that co-shaping that. is something I don't think we have seen yet. And there's risk. think we look at mining, there's, from this time you start operating, there's always a chance you're going to close before your intended timeframe. And that's where it creates risk in those relationships and how things are going to work, to work with a community reinforces the need to keep that conversation going on. allows you to really understand what that cultural, emotional, practical connections communities with the space so that you're actually co-shaping it and that it's really aligned with community priorities because that misalignment ⁓ will eat at the trust. And so when we start looking at what it could be five to 10 years down the road, that really has to be shaped with the communities and it's got to be shaped years in advance. in areas, you might not other economic development opportunities in the same way that a mine provided. ⁓ So it's really got to start outside the box of how you're enabling businesses. people that have gained capabilities and technical abilities to participate in other areas. So that co-shaping of that future together becomes important. There's lots of benefits that minds provide through their operations, but left in everybody's mind will be what's left behind.
Dave Clark: Spot on. certain operations and particularly those that have got an extended mine life, you like, ⁓ mine closure might feel a distant future issue for many of the leaders that have ⁓ certain responsibilities. What mine for you have we captured within the that... you could suggest they need to make now before there are other and external pressures around them being forced to sort of react.
Mary Kelly: Yeah, I think it goes back to early, ongoing building up that relationship. It's building that trust. Trust is something that is so hard to rebuild once it's damaged. ⁓ I don't think ⁓ we can afford to lose that trust. There's many pressures, there too many people watching and recognizing A mine can close at any time. You could think that you've got a 50 year life of mine, but a company can change ownerships, the economy can change. And how are you going to be upholding those commitments, those relationships, if you haven't continually invested in them?
Dave Clark: there's really important drivers amongst those areas that you've touched on there, And I guess ⁓ the question I'd like to table at this stage is where do you consider the opportunity to move mind closure for some ⁓ from a more of a compliance into a genuine community led transition that helps to that lasting value. ⁓
Mary Kelly: I think it comes down to co-planning. If community representatives are not at the table when you're contemplating ideas of what might look like, not talking about ideas you have for closure, ⁓ you're actually genuinely visioning what closure could look like together, I think that's where communities want to be. And I think that's going to become increasingly more important. with heightened expectations as local communities, as Indigenous communities become equity owners in these sites.
Dave Clark: Excellent. Thank you, Mary. again for joining the session today. There's a lot of good examples, I guess, that we have touched on or discussed at least. But what's important for me having some common, clarity around... the end goals, if you like, and what are our shared objectives and how do we best go about achieving those? Relinquishment, as you touched on, has rare, to be honest. Relinquishment amongst a whole bunch of jurisdictions. So ⁓ how we generate more examples of where relinquishment has been successfully achieved ⁓ and we've that stakeholder? endorsement in terms of the plans and the visions and what's been executed. How can we progressively ⁓ reduce those liabilities during the course of a mine life? And we've heard some good examples again during the summit ⁓ that with what DIVIC have been able to achieve ⁓ Realtinto as well at the end of production and the percentage ⁓ rehabilitation and reclamation in effect that they've achieved. So they've shown that it can be done and there are other examples too. But I think the successful social transition piece, and I know it's one of ICMM's success criteria and we've discussed that a lot today, really important. And it's all about creating those lasting ⁓ beyond closure ⁓ ⁓ thanks again, Mary. Thanks everyone for listening ⁓ and look forward to seeing you again next time.
Mary Kelly: Awesome. Thanks Dave.
Dave Clark: Welcome back Transform.
Tash Wilson: Today you're joining us for the final part of our two-part conversation on moving beyond mind closure. Today we're continuing the discussion with Dave Clark and Mary Kelly. Over to Dave to kick off part two of this discussion.
Dave Clark: One of the really strong themes in the Beyond Closure report that we did prepare was around treating social ⁓ closure as a core design input and just a downstream issue. Where do you think, Mary, organisations most commonly underestimate? that social and community dimension it comes to ⁓ and asset and site transition. ⁓
Mary Kelly: I think there's a few key aspects that we see like that relationship or that connection breakdown and that trust erode. we start engagement on things after we've already developed options. We've already constrained them. And I think the transparency of showing the options is what helps build that trust. You're building that. understanding of people talk about capacity, but you're really building knowledge and shared knowledge between the mining company and the community. And the other part you start to see is that there's a dialogue, there's conversation, but who has any real decision making authority? How does a community's voice actually count and matter? And you can see that in some places where community values are woven into the decision matrix. And so when a community sees what's important to them, their priorities, helping shape the decisions, their voice is counted. And probably the other piece we see is that asking communities to trust that outcome, but they haven't had any ownership in that. And so unless we create that continuity over time, we've lost that opportunity for long-term outcome.
Dave Clark: Yeah, great. Thanks, Mary. And I think to your point, the earlier the better. ⁓ I think an ongoing important consideration, particularly around First Nations engagements ⁓ and that Indigenous engagement piece is, is it at the time of a blank sheet, if you like, in terms determining options collectively, ⁓ or is around, you know, considering a long list of options and you've got that engagement and sense of buy-in and involvement in that process as well. either of those stages, certainly earlier then, ⁓ a done deal. The decision has been made and we're sort of ticking a box here and I'd like to think that we're far from that in terms of how we go about it. But ⁓ timing piece is really important as you've touched on. So there anything else you'd like to reflect on around... what it does look like to treat social closure as key and fundamental design input as well.
Mary Kelly: I think it comes up throughout various aspects. ⁓ Often I've seen, I guess, like you have one meeting to talk about a closure plan but it needs be iterative. Plans don't just pop up. They evolve based on input from lots of parties, looked at data consideration. And when we involve communities in that process, it shifts ⁓ the conversation. It might not shift, the outcome might not be the same at the end. It might be the same, we don't know. But being part of that process is a much different feeling. And so when we start looking at how we evaluate those decisions and we put like real values on the table, we understand what receptors are, not just to mining company ⁓ and players, ⁓ but to whom. to the land users, to users, ⁓ species that may be important? And what about the future use of the land? What priorities may the community have for that? So if we skip this step, we've optimized the system, but not the outcome for the people that ⁓ care about. And so when we put real options on the table, we create the space to ⁓ long-term liability decisions together. And we need to be explicit in those. We don't need to the information. We really need to talk about what are the risks? What are the costs? What does maintenance look like? How often? What would that be? And what are the failure modes? ⁓ transparency of that really informs the conversation. So people don't need to become technical hydrologists or different things like that. but they need to see the choices and have a voice in those choices. And I think there's an instinct to reduce before sharing, right? Like it's part of who we are ⁓ technical people. But when we do that, we create transparency. And when we don't create a definition of a trigger, that's a shared vision. And that all feeds into that long term, that legacy that we're talking about, that we're asking someone else to essentially hold.
Dave Clark: great reflections there too, and you're spot on, you can only reduce that uncertainty ⁓ so far and by a lot more mature around these engagements and being vulnerable, being open and honest, we'll just continue to build that trust and I thought you made a great point around ⁓ it's an ongoing it's an iterative process and we've got to honour that ⁓ in terms of our to those stakeholders as well. Do you have any other thoughts around how... Indigenous nations their expectations are changing around closure.
Mary Kelly: Well, from my perspective, in Canada, know, First Nations, Inuit communities, you have to it's part of the process. But there's a much different perspective when you are a mine owner. These are communities that you are now sharing the land with. so we've seen this evolution from very checkbox engagement, where it was... ⁓ more information sharing, that there's been a real evolution through the development of impact benefit agreements where you've seen a lot more participation and the sharing of the a mine site. You have individuals that are employed at the mine site. You have companies that are now forming and supporting the growth of that mine site. And then you have a bunch of spin-off businesses associated with that. So you have seen communities completely change and grow as part of this. And when you talk about the closure of a mine, where do those businesses go next? What is that opportunity? So there's a much different legacy conversation that needs to be had now too. And you're seeing increasingly more so that communities are looking for equity stakes and projects. So if you're an equity owner, you have a different position in on that. but they may also have priorities about how that land might be used into the future. And so how infrastructure at a mine site could be reutilized for other purposes. I think those are all really important considerations that can't be just left to the last minute. I think you see in Canada spaces where, former camps are reused in communities, you see repurposing of energy facilities, and these are all valuable pieces of infrastructure that can be brought on to a community as a very beneficial aspect, but have to be part of the conversation to define that.
Dave Clark: Clearly some really important changes are in that space ⁓ and as you say, some really examples ⁓ where a positive and lasting community benefit occur as So thank you.
Mary Kelly: So Dave, it's usually a lack of data, a lack of trust, or a lack of willingness in decision making. So where do you think things are falling in there?
Dave Clark: Yeah, it's a good question and we've spoken about a couple of those areas already in instances, I'd probably say all of the above. It's typically a sort of a combination. The trust is fundamental and I'd love to think that we are shifting from a historic trust deficit to a large extent. ⁓ I think ⁓
Mary Kelly: you
Dave Clark: Yes, there's uncertainty, suitable confidence in the data and ⁓ confidence trust are really key. I made to summit that you and I had the opportunity to participate in recently, one of the messages coming of... ICMM was one of those really key and organisations representing the mining companies I know, but around being ⁓ lot more open, providing open source data especially to increase that visibility and really drive that transparency and sharing of ⁓ data I think ⁓ for that will help. there is on occasion a lack of data that hasn't yet been that needs to be addressed in terms of some of those gaps. ⁓ But there's sufficient data to help make decisions on making it readily available ⁓ in that of public domain will be important. I think companies understand that and we're making some gains in that regard as well. ⁓ historically I'd like to consider that may have been a lack of decision making, clearly, and as you've indicated in terms of changing expectations, ⁓ that shared leadership, decision making ⁓ is really important. ⁓ other thing that I believe is fundamental this regard the I spoke about ICMM. but other country-based, whether it's MAC in Canada or ⁓ within Australia, or whether it's around the professional associations, in of CIM or SME in the US, or again, AUSIMM I think there's a role through those associations to help with the in the planning and execution of my enclosure, as well as the people side in terms of... setting standards that are expected of everyone, people and upskilling as well. So those sorts of things tie into a combination of data the engagement piece and decision making processes too.
Mary Kelly: Yeah, you touched on the trust, I think that's a theme, because when we were at Water and Mining, it's a very technical conference, and to see the themes of trust and collaboration woven through almost every session that I attended, I think that makes me really very optimistic about where things are going, and knowing that organizations like ICMM are helping backstop. that by giving guidance companies for path to follow. Every journey going to be different because every community going to be working at is different, ⁓ but it's giving some tools ⁓ to think about you could do different and do better.
Dave Clark: exactly, we discussed with ICMM ⁓ during that forum. What need to satisfy ourselves ⁓ with that those tools that you refer to being utilized, it's by their member companies or other organizations, some really good frameworks ⁓ and tools and ⁓ Let's make sure we're using those appropriately as well. Within the Beyond Closure report, we spoke about ⁓ sites into long-term assets. ⁓ touched on a couple of things earlier, but what that look like ⁓ in ⁓ for Mary?
Mary Kelly: I think it's something that is still relatively new in terms of a journey in most areas. There hasn't been that recognition that communities have a role to play when we start talking about closure. I think it's a sensitive conversation because ⁓ communities become reliant in some fashion ⁓ the economy that has been recreated by mine site, then it is a, you know, it's a challenging conversation to enter into and why it makes it so important that you're continuing that conversation. And by continuing that conversation, you allow for that early recognition of how you want to do that land use planning. Because if you're reshaping the landscape, once you remove infrastructure, how is that landscape going to be reshaped to benefit the communities? Maybe they have species that are of priority in terms of an importance to them. and maybe the specific habitat. But maybe there's infrastructure that the community can benefit. They want to see it left in place. They want to be able to utilize it. So how do you balance liability risks of a closed mine site with people wanting to use the land? It brings in how important that conversation is to look at both of the economics of that and the human health risk aspects of that. So that has to be part of all that planning discussion. And it can't be left to the point of, ⁓ well, we're done. We have this leftover. Are you interested? That's not the conversation we're at anymore. Maybe 20, 30 years ago, but that's not now.
Dave Clark: Yeah, no, exactly.
Mary Kelly: So I think when we start talking about what good looks like in terms of closure. we need to start looking at what that might look like in time to come. And so when closure isn't handled well, what that actually looks like from a community's perspective, what are you seeing, Dave?
Dave Clark: Well, think in those cases where it's not handled well, and hopefully as a collective that's something we can continue to avoid if you like, but where it's not handled well, mean, from a community perspective, you just don't get that sense of ownership and ⁓ of buy-in as we really need. And ⁓ in those cases, we don't give ourselves the opportunity to... realise the lasting community or environmental and social sort of benefits that we've spoken of today as well. So it's a missed opportunity for me in that regard. And ⁓ risk is ⁓ it all becomes too hard. It doesn't get executed or implemented as intended or as it could be. ⁓ You the chance of really... achieving that positive legacy and once again in that instance you're going to be left with a medium to long-term negative legacy site that hasn't been responsibly transitioned which as we opened up with has reflected poorly on the industry as a whole and it's something that together we've got to avoid, you know, we've certainly got to avoid because it's around that social license to close ⁓ and ⁓ given cyclic nature of the industry that'll ⁓ impact our ability to responsibly and achieve that license up front to develop new minds that are essential if you like to facilitating the whole energy transition well as the other benefits that come with that. So given the discussion we've just had, Mary, ⁓ what might that look like communities in five to 10 years' time?
Mary Kelly: I think that's something I would love to work on, that co-shaping that. is something I don't think we have seen yet. And there's risk. think we look at mining, there's, from this time you start operating, there's always a chance you're going to close before your intended timeframe. And that's where it creates risk in those relationships and how things are going to work, to work with a community reinforces the need to keep that conversation going on. allows you to really understand what that cultural, emotional, practical connections communities with the space so that you're actually co-shaping it and that it's really aligned with community priorities because that misalignment ⁓ will eat at the trust. And so when we start looking at what it could be five to 10 years down the road, that really has to be shaped with the communities and it's got to be shaped years in advance. in areas, you might not other economic development opportunities in the same way that a mine provided. ⁓ So it's really got to start outside the box of how you're enabling businesses. people that have gained capabilities and technical abilities to participate in other areas. So that co-shaping of that future together becomes important. There's lots of benefits that minds provide through their operations, but left in everybody's mind will be what's left behind.
Dave Clark: Spot on. certain operations and particularly those that have got an extended mine life, you like, ⁓ mine closure might feel a distant future issue for many of the leaders that have ⁓ certain responsibilities. What mine for you have we captured within the that... you could suggest they need to make now before there are other and external pressures around them being forced to sort of react.
Mary Kelly: Yeah, I think it goes back to early, ongoing building up that relationship. It's building that trust. Trust is something that is so hard to rebuild once it's damaged. ⁓ I don't think ⁓ we can afford to lose that trust. There's many pressures, there too many people watching and recognizing A mine can close at any time. You could think that you've got a 50 year life of mine, but a company can change ownerships, the economy can change. And how are you going to be upholding those commitments, those relationships, if you haven't continually invested in them?
Dave Clark: there's really important drivers amongst those areas that you've touched on there, And I guess ⁓ the question I'd like to table at this stage is where do you consider the opportunity to move mind closure for some ⁓ from a more of a compliance into a genuine community led transition that helps to that lasting value. ⁓
Mary Kelly: I think it comes down to co-planning. If community representatives are not at the table when you're contemplating ideas of what might look like, not talking about ideas you have for closure, ⁓ you're actually genuinely visioning what closure could look like together, I think that's where communities want to be. And I think that's going to become increasingly more important. with heightened expectations as local communities, as Indigenous communities become equity owners in these sites.
Dave Clark: Excellent. Thank you, Mary. again for joining the session today. There's a lot of good examples, I guess, that we have touched on or discussed at least. But what's important for me having some common, clarity around... the end goals, if you like, and what are our shared objectives and how do we best go about achieving those? Relinquishment, as you touched on, has rare, to be honest. Relinquishment amongst a whole bunch of jurisdictions. So ⁓ how we generate more examples of where relinquishment has been successfully achieved ⁓ and we've that stakeholder? endorsement in terms of the plans and the visions and what's been executed. How can we progressively ⁓ reduce those liabilities during the course of a mine life? And we've heard some good examples again during the summit ⁓ that with what DIVIC have been able to achieve ⁓ Realtinto as well at the end of production and the percentage ⁓ rehabilitation and reclamation in effect that they've achieved. So they've shown that it can be done and there are other examples too. But I think the successful social transition piece, and I know it's one of ICMM's success criteria and we've discussed that a lot today, really important. And it's all about creating those lasting ⁓ beyond closure ⁓ ⁓ thanks again, Mary. Thanks everyone for listening ⁓ and look forward to seeing you again next time.
Mary Kelly: Awesome. Thanks Dave.
