Getting to ‘agreed’ post-mining land use – an ecosystem services approach

Abstract

Mining companies are expected to ensure a positive legacy for communities and to engage them in defining post-mining land uses. This paper examined how an ecosystem service approach might be utilised to arrive at agreed post-mining land uses acceptable to communities and the mining company during mine closure planning. This was investigated in the context of a major bauxite mine in the Amazon region of Brazil. Data were gathered through document analysis, interviews with communities and a workshop with company staff. Using an ecosystem services approach enabled a focused rehabilitation goal on relevant services to be identified that would deliver social and ecological benefits alike. Company staff favourably viewed this approach as an opportunity to engage communities. Overall taking an ecosystem services approach provided a pathway for getting to an agreed post-mining land use as its inherent anthropic focus provides a way to include community perspectives.

Keywords:

• Community engagement
• mine rehabilitation
• mine closure
• restoration targets
• Amazon

1. Introduction

Mining is increasingly recognised as a temporary land use requiring appropriate planning for closure in order to ensure an agreed-upon post-mining land use is delivered (e.g. Otto 1997; MMSD 2002; ICMM 2008). Drawing on a review of international mine closure planning guidance, Sánchez et al. (2014) summarised three principles on planning for mine closure: (1) protection of environmental quality; (2) ensuring land rehabilitation to enable a future land use consistent with local and regional demands; and (3) achieving a post-closure situation that brings a positive and lasting legacy for communities. In terms of process for accomplishing these outcomes, best practice approaches will engage stakeholders in all stages of a mine lifecycle, starting with its environmental and social impact assessment (Sweeting and Clark 2000; ICMM 2008).

In particular, it is expected that local communities are engaged in defining post-mining land use along with other stakeholders, and that they participate in a periodic process of reviewing the closure plan and follow up rehabilitation work undertaken (Jha-Thakur et al. 2009; Morrison-Saunders et al. 2016). Defining post-mining land uses is a key activity of mine closure planning (ICMM 2008; Sánchez et al. 2014) as it governs much of what needs to be done in terms of waste rock handling and disposal, soil preparation and runoff management, as well as revegetation, among other typical actions in mine rehabilitation.

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits that society obtains from ecosystems, and the concept provides a new way to understand the human–nature relationship (Fish et al. 2016). An ES approach supports evidence-based decision-making to improve human well-being (Preston and Raudsepp-Hearne 2017). Therefore, it has been considered a useful approach to a variety of planning practices, including, land-use planning (Jacobs et al. 2016), protected areas planning and management (Lima et al. 2016), environmental damages assessment (Preston and Raudsepp-Hearne 2017), environmental impact assessment – EIA (Rosa and Sánchez 2016) and strategic environmental assessment (Partidario and Gomes 2013).

Land rehabilitation has previously been studied under an ES approach. For example, Zipper et al. (2011) observed that improved forest restoration techniques for coal mining rehabilitation in Appalachia, US are ‘expected to restore’ (p. 751) land capability to provide forest-based ecosystem services, but do not demonstrate such provision. Modelling of nine ecosystem services pre- and post-mining at landscape scale in Germany by Larondelle and Haase (2012) showed how the concept could be useful to analyse future land use alternatives for a coal mine.

Taking an ecosystem services approach, mine closure planning maintains the focus on people’s use of and dependency upon ecosystems rather than simply defending biophysical-oriented rehabilitation. The use of a socio-ecological categorisation, represented by the four categories of ES (provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting), helps to structure (Baker et al. 2013) an agreed post-mining land use during community engagement processes, with a focus on those services important to communities. Considering the long-time span of many mining projects, such engagement represents an opportunity for communities to influence the mine closure plan implementation and follow-up (Dare et al. 2014). This implies that follow up should appropriately include community engagement, an aspect of EIA practice frequently reported as being weak or absent (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2003; Jha-Thakur et al. 2009).

The aim of this research is to understand how an ecosystem services approach might be utilised to arrive at agreed post-mining land uses acceptable to local communities and the mining company during mine closure planning processes. In short, the research applied an ecosystem services approach to get to an agreed land use for a current mining operation in the Brazilian Amazon that would satisfy local communities and the mining company alike. Both the methods and the lessons learned will have relevance to practitioners and researchers alike interested in expanding the practice of ecosystem services concept in environmental planning.

In the following sections, the study context is explained followed by an outline of our methods for working with the community and mining company. Key findings from interviews with communities and a workshop with company staff are presented in Section 4. Section 5 discusses how and why an ecosystem services approach can be helpful to get to an agreed post-mining land use, leading to lessons learned and overall conclusions.

2. Study context: overview of the Juruti mine and surrounds

To understand the context of the research with regards to getting to an agreed post-mining land use, some background on the nature of the mining company and its operations and of the existing local community and their interaction within the area undergoing mining is necessary.

The Juruti project features one of the biggest bauxite reserves in the world. Mineral leases are held by Alcoa, a global mining and aluminium company. The mine started operations in 2009, as a greenfield operation, its current output is 6 Mt/y, small in comparison to other bauxite operations in the world. The first pit will have 5500 hectares of final footprint and two more pits are scheduled. The bauxite is found in flat low altitude plateaux covered by relatively well-preserved terra firme¹ (unflooded areas) dense forest (Hunter-Xenie et al. 2017). The forest is used by communities and has been impacted by timber extraction and fire since the 20th century, but it features very good conservation status (CNEC 2005). The affected area presents a high fauna and flora diversity, including two endangered tree species: Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) and Pau-cravo (Dicypellium caryophyllaceum).

Land rights were collectively assigned to traditional communities in an arrangement established by the government in 2005 known as Juruti Velho Agroextractivist Settlement (109,551 hectares), including 45 communities distributed on the margins of a riverside lake (Gavidia and Kemp 2017), the Lago Juruti Grande (Figure 1). These communities comprise about 2000 families organised in an association that receives mining royalties. The Environmental Impact Study – EIS described these communities as living in a similar way with livelihood based on small scale agriculture, cassava flour production and fishing (CNEC 2005). The forest is not just a resource for the communities, but also has important cultural values (Verweij et al. 2009; Gavidia and Kemp 2017). Many families receive some government assistance. The Juruti population experiences high levels of poverty, deficient infrastructure and insufficient basic services (Gavidia and Kemp 2017).

Figure 1. The mine footprint and communities.

Mine rehabilitation is progressively carried out during operation. Bauxite occurs in shallow layers. Topsoil, overburden and bauxite are sequentially excavated with overburden and topsoil returned to restoration plots for revegetation, while the mining process commences in a new or adjoining area. Tailings from bauxite processing are stored in ponds inside the mine pit and are scheduled to be revegetated once these reach capacities.

3. Methods

Following on from initial document analysis to understand the history and processes for post-mining land use and current rehabilitation for the Juruti mining project, two key approaches recommended in ecosystem services assessments (Rosenthal et al. 2015; Fish et al. 2016) were adopted. Firstly, a semi-structured joint interview was conducted with affected communities to understand for what purposes they use the pre-mined forest and how they wish to use the rehabilitated forest post-mining. Secondly, a workshop with mining company staff was conducted in which they were asked to analyse whether an ecosystem services approach could be helpful in mine closure planning and rehabilitation.

Through the interviews, the desired post-mining land use, in community’s viewpoint, was identified. This information was later shared with the mining company during the workshop. Explanation of these two approaches in relation to our overarching research aim follows.

3.1. Community interviews

During field work in the region surrounding the mine, the first author visited 14 communities (Figure 1, red dots) starting informal conversation to understand the level of community use of land impacted by mining operations. From this process, five communities living close to the present mine site were selected, whose members informed that they had made use of pre-mined areas to extract a range of forest products (shown in Figure 2 and discussed later on). Confirmation of relevant communities affected by mining operations in this way came from the EIS (CNEC 2005) which showed that communities used to access forest areas in close proximity to their dwellings.

Figure 2. Products utilising resources extracted from the forest.

We conducted interviews with 19 families within the five communities (Figure 1, brown dots). The isolated nature of these communities meant that it was necessary for the lead author to reside with the communities over a field work period of three weeks in November 2016. This meant that multiple conversations tended to take place, rather than a single interview conducted at each site. Furthermore, the communal nature of these settlements resulted in joint interviews being conducted. For example, the couple responsible for the family as well as other family members and sometimes neighbours could be present. In light of this contextual setting, semi-structured interview questions were posed (Box 1) with prompts and further clarification questions being utilised as needed on a case-by-case basis. This kind of interview is recommended (e.g. Liamputtong 2007; Arksey and Knight 2011) when the research question is about a well-established relationship and when the participants are connected, as it provides a trusting atmosphere, which is helpful in case of sensitive communities or conflict situations.

There are approximately 140 families in these communities (CNEC 2005). It was not intended to achieve representative sampling, as this research represents an example of a first step in applying ecosystem service approach to mine closure planning.

Box 1: Interview questions

1.	What were your previous uses [i.e. ecosystem services] of the current mining area?
2.	Which of these uses do you consider most important or miss the most?
3.	Have you stopped performing or producing something as a consequence of mining impacts? If yes, why?
4.	How would you like the company to return the land for post-mining use?
5.	To what extent do you anticipate that the next generation of your family/community will use the rehabilitated lands?

The questions did not make mention of the ecosystem services, but were developed around the services provided by affected ecosystems, identified previously by analysing data featured in the EIS (CNEC 2005). Drawing upon the theoretical grounding established in our literature review, we interpreted the answers obtained in light of the ecosystem services approach.

3.2. Workshop with mining company staff

A workshop was convened with 15 Juruti mine staff according to the following schedule: (i) a summary presentation by two of the researchers about adopting an ecosystem services approach; (ii) small group discussion about the questions (Box 2), inviting participants to reflect on the company’s rehabilitation process, its challenges and how ecosystem service approach could be helpful in this process; (iii) whole group discussion with all participants invited to explain and substantiate their answers.

Box 2: Workshop questions

1.	Are you familiar with the ecosystem services concept?
2.	What are your views about community engagement and their involvement in decision-making regarding post-mining land use?
3.	What are the challenges faced by Alcoa Juruti operation to rehabilitate mined areas?
4.	Do you believe that the ecosystem services concept could be helpful in relation to mine closure and rehabilitation planning? How?

4. Results

Although there is no legal requirement to engage communities for deciding on post-mining land uses in Brazil, the EIA process does require public consultation prior to granting an environmental approval (as summarised in Box 3).

During EIA development, the company did engage with the community to discuss the short- and long-term impacts of the Juruti mine and to develop a set of local sustainable development indicators, called ‘Sustainable Juruti Program’. This initiative aimed at increasing the potential of the mine to foster lasting local development, and includes the establishment of a multistakeholder council, the development sustainability metrics and an endowment funded by Alcoa (Abdala 2011).

Box 3: Mine closure and rehabilitation in Brazil and Pará

Environmental and social impacts of mining activities in Brazil can be regulated by Federal jurisdiction or by the States. Legal requirements for post-mining rehabilitation date back to the Constitution (1988). Since 1989, companies have to submit a rehabilitation plan (alongside the environmental impact study in the case of new mines). Regulations requiring submission of a closure plan were introduced in 2002, calling for a post-mining intended land use to be defined for each mine. However, regulations do not require community engagement regarding post-mining land use, except for a public hearing prior to project environmental approval. The environmental regulator for the Juruti mine – the Pará State Department of Environment – did not establish any requirements for mine closure, nor any standards or parameters to monitor success of land rehabilitation. Such parameters can be defined on a case-by-case basis during the environmental impact assessment.

The mine closure plan is one of the management programmes described in the EIS. Its aim was to ‘restore the land to a stable condition that will be consistent with the post-mining land use chosen’ (CNEC 2005). This aim was detailed in a rehabilitation plan (RAS 2012), which was approved by the State environmental agency, including a new objective focused on a stakeholder engagement process to improve land rehabilitation. The rehabilitated areas should be returned to riverside communities who have traditionally been highly dependent on local natural resources. Those communities were not consulted about the intended post-mining land use, although mine staff and members or the communities interact in different ways.

Local communities are included in four of twelve specific goals of the rehabilitation plan; (i) providing a training course and technical assistance about seedling production for local communities; (ii) informing all stakeholders about the land rehabilitation process and outcomes; (iii) developing ethnobotanical research to identify and describe key-species; and (iv) developing a discussion process about the decommissioning phase with all stakeholders (RAS 2012). At the time of the fieldwork (Nov 2016), only the first and second goals had been implemented.

While this engagement was generally consistent with international mine closure planning guidance (discussed in Section 1), no attempt was made to obtain the perspectives (e.g. expectations or wishes) of the community for the post-mining land use, because this decision had already been made. It is well recognised that such top-down decision-making increases the possibility of conflicts arising, while starting with community perspectives and engagement is likely to get an agreed outcome shared by all parties (IFC 2007; ICMM 2012; Australian Government 2016).

The follow up process revolves around the presentation of an annual monitoring report by the mining company to the regulator. To date only data on plant diversity, seedling mortality and vegetation growth in the rehabilitated areas have been collected on a twice-yearly basis (Marca Consultant 2015), despite the approved rehabilitation monitoring programme includes physical (soil, erosion), biotic (vegetation cover and fauna) and social (stakeholder perceptions of the rehabilitation process) parameters.

Results obtained from the interviews and the workshop are synthesised below.

4.1. Community perspectives on ecosystem services and mining rehabilitation

The affected forest ecosystem provided many ecosystem services for local communities, as representatives described during the interviews. All families affirmed that they used to collect natural medicines, fruits, seeds and nuts. Timber was extracted to build boats, houses and community buildings such as schools and cultural centres. They also used to extract different types of fibres to produce the baskets used to collect fruits and seeds, and for making brooms (Figure 2). Losses of ecosystem services resulting from mining would place additional strain on an already relatively impoverished community. Interviewees recorded adverse impacts on game hunting, noting that wildlife was frightened away due to noise and light pollution caused by mining operations.

A majority (90%) of respondents stated that they especially missed collecting Brazil nuts. Three families talked about a celebration during the harvest season that is no longer carried out. The importance of Brazil nuts to the local community has been recognised by the company. To recover this service, 20 seedlings/ha are planted in the rehabilitated area, while early monitoring reports show a survival rate of 8 individuals/ha. Trees of this species are naturally quite dispersed in the landscape (Scoles et al. 2011); flora inventories of pre-mining sites found 5 trees/ha on average (Marca Consultant 2015). Taking accounting that it will take decades for this service to return (first Brazil nut harvest season taking 15–20 years after planting) in mined areas assuming that rehabilitation efforts are successful, the cultural aspects warrant more attention.

Both document analysis and interviews support the conclusion that agricultural activity and services provided by the aquatic ecosystems in proximity to the mine site are not being affected. Impacts on these ecosystem services are avoided by mitigation measures, such as maintaining native vegetation on the edge of the bauxite areas which serve to prevent soil erosion.

Overall, 70% of families affirmed that they had not ceased producing goods or carrying out other activities as a consequence of mining. The remaining 30% stated that they had stopped removing timber from mining areas, but they indicated that they continue to develop small-scale agriculture, fishing and production of cassava flour, as they had been doing prior to mining. During the interviews, while it was noted that the mining project footprint overall represents only a small part (about 5%) of the total forest within the collective land of the Juruti Velho PAE (Figure 1), respondents also affirmed that community members continue to go to the forest to extract products, but in some places they must now travel further to do so.

It was apparent that communities know that the mined areas will be rehabilitated and returned for them. When asked directly about the post-mining land use that they would like, all interviewed families emphatically stated that they want: ‘the forest to be returned in the same conditions as it was before mining’. At the same time, all respondents also affirmed that they do not believe that it is possible to accomplish this. As noted previously, for them the forest is not only a source of important resources, but also represents cultural value.

The final interview question concerned longer term use of the forest and post-mining areas. On one hand, about 50% of families expected that the next generation will undertake the same activities as theirs. On the other hand, some families wish a better quality of life for the next generation (e.g. having access to better jobs and to modern infrastructure); on this basis, they do not want them to maintain a similar lifestyle. In addition, some respondents noted that as children do not see their parents using the forest it is not likely that, once grown-up, they would choose to use the forest in the traditional manner of the communities anyway.

4.2. Staff workshop outcomes

In the workshop with mine staff, following a brief presentation about the ecosystem services and the community perspectives obtained from the interviews, we proposed a revised rehabilitation goal (Figure 3). This represents a move from the broad objective of ‘improving mining land rehabilitation’, which consequently is somewhat difficult to achieve and hard to demonstrate, to a community-focused goal.

Figure 3. Comparing the objective of post-mining land use without and within communities’ perspective.

Importantly this process would be mediated through community engagement using the ecosystem services approach as the basis for determining desired post-mining land uses. For that, relevant ecosystem services should be selected, through community engagement, taking in account the biophysical baseline. This approach is intended to provide better (i.e. more achievable and satisfactory) outcomes for the mining company and affected communities alike.

Our proposal was received favourably by the 15 employees and managers who attended the workshop. They remarked that the current goal represents the activities that have been developed, but a focus on relevant ecosystem services could be helpful for the monitoring programme. However, they emphasised that a more focused objective will not imply any significative changes in rehabilitation practices, because although the current general objective does not explicitly include local communities, they expected to have the forest returned to them in similar condition to the pre-mining environment.

Synthesised results of the second and third phases of the workshop (Box 2 questions) follow.

Most workshop participants were from the Environment, Health and Safety team, but there were representatives from Mine Planning, Sustainability and Community Liaison teams. Only one group (mine planning team) did not previously know of the ES concept.

All participants recognised the importance of community engagement in decision-making regarding post mining land use. However, they emphasised that the decision about the post-mining land use is made by the regulator. One explicit attempt by the mining company to involve communities in rehabilitation process is training local community members to produce all plant seedlings used to restore the forest. This relates to getting to an agreed post-mining land use to some extent in that it might be assumed that where community members are directly involved in the rehabilitation operations, there would be greater acceptance of the resulting landscape returned.

The company representatives also talked about the difficulties they experienced in interacting with government agencies, including the absence of any guidance or incentive to involve communities in mine closure planning or rehabilitation process. Participants conveyed the message that the company is keen to uphold international best practice and aims at operating ‘beyond compliance’ in relation to the relatively under-regulated arrangements in Brazil (Box 3).

The workshop was also an opportunity to get the company staff perspective regarding current rehabilitation challenges. Three key points were noted: (i) a government gap in providing guidance and establishing procedures for rehabilitation; (ii) practical challenges to access and to monitor large areas of rehabilitation; and (iii) the absence of restoration targets established by regulation. These findings show that even though the company historically uphold international best practices, the staff nevertheless expect appropriate and valued government guidelines.

The workshop participants indicated that they considered the ecosystem services approach could be helpful in community engagement. However, they expressed doubts that the regulator would or could accept this approach. Comments made during the workshop by one company representative indicated a realisation that the ecosystem services approach could provide a useful way to communicate rehabilitation outcomes to communities, a currently follow-up gap, as the monitoring reports are solely directed to the regulator.

5. Discussion: why and how an ecosystem services approach can be helpful to get to an agreed about post-mining land use

The ecosystem services approach was conceptualised as a means to communicate and facilitate understanding of the human–nature relationship (Fish et al. 2016), thereby providing an anthropocentric frame for communicating ecological issues (Slootweg et al. 2010; Scholte et al. 2016). Obviously, it is easier to talk about benefits of nature, such as natural medicine, timber or freshwater, than about biodiversity or species richness. Hence, ecosystem services are a way to translate the importance of biodiversity and nature itself to stakeholders (Slootweg et al. 2010; Geneletti 2016), facilitating the engagement process (Rosa and Sánchez 2016). In the mining context, discussions about rehabilitation and post-mining land use can invite this socio-ecological approach.

Although engaging communities is recommended by best practices in both EIA (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2003; Australian Government 2016) and mine closure planning (Sánchez et al. 2014), practice is still lacking. A reported advantage of the ecosystem services approach, in the context of EIA, is improving engagement with communities (Baker et al. 2013; Rosa and Sánchez 2016). This is due to the intrinsic needs of the ecosystem services approach of getting a community perspective. Essentially, it is not possible to apply it without engaging communities to understand how they interact with and benefit from the natural environment. As Honrado et al. (2013) affirm, ignoring people would remove the main rationale for an ecosystem services approach. In addition, Lazos-Chavero et al. (2016) noted that continuous engagement helps through addressing dynamic trade-offs and synergies in community participation.

In this research, interviews with communities and the workshop with staff showed that communities and the mining company are not far from getting to an agreement on post-mining land use. However, the broad rehabilitation goal currently approved by regulators does not explicitly captures a community perspective and it is hard to deliver. This research showed evidence that the ecosystem services approach can provide a common language to connect the company to communities. It provides a pathway to identify desired post-mining land uses for communities, by selecting the relevant services for them. From that, community perspectives can be directly included in decision-making for post-mining land use, promoting an agreement between them and company, as advocated in best practice guidance (IFC 2007; ICMM 2008; Australian Government 2016), and improving the chances of abiding by the principles of mine closure planning (Sánchez et al. 2014).

Although the company started a process of stakeholders’ engagement in early steps of EIA (Abdala 2011), the key concerns were related to the transformation induced by a large project in small communities. Despite upholding the prevailing legal expectations, in effect, poor attention was paid to mine closure and to post-mining land use. Even though the rehabilitation goal stated for the Juruti bauxite operation mentions stakeholder engagement and the rehabilitated areas will be returned to the local communities, they were not directly involved in deciding post-mining land use. Company staff related this fact to the absence of government requirements to involve communities in this decision-making.

The absence of mine closure guidance is not particular to Brazil – for example, Morrison-Saunders et al. (2016) noted similar challenges for a suite of African countries and Jha-Thakur and Fischer (2008) for India. Interestingly, best practice examples are evident in Alcoa operations elsewhere – for example, in Western Australian bauxite mines within jarrah forest area, where the company has been operating for 50+ years. Here, completion criteria were developed in consultation with stakeholders to monitor post mining rehabilitation with a focus on ongoing land uses (that can be associated with ecosystem services) for recreation, timber production, water and conservation (Koch and Hobbs 2007).

To bridge the gap in Brazil, mining companies could take advantage of the ES approach to engage all stakeholders. Universities and research centres could be helpful in this process as shown by our own experience from hosting the workshop with company staff. In addition, the opportunities offered by the EIA process to improve rehabilitation should be better used, as advocated by Neri and Sánchez (2010).

As one company staff remarked during the workshop, the ecosystem services approach does not imply different rehabilitation activities, but it does necessitate community participation. This participation contributes to follow up by communicating rehabilitation outcomes is currently a gap of EIA (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2003; Jha-Thakur et al. 2009) and mine closure planning (Sánchez et al. 2014). However, in case a mining company decides to apply the ecosystem services approach, much more has to be done, as interviews with communities and workshop with staffs were just the method we used in a research context, representing a first step of getting communities’ perspectives.

Showing the potential contribution of the ES approach to mine closure planning, it is necessary to point that it does not substitute for other considerations in planning for mine closure and land rehabilitation. As shown in this research, when asked about the most important services provided by the ecosystems, communities whose livelihood is dependent on natural resources promptly identify provisioning, and sometimes, cultural services, but do not necessarily value regulating services (Ridder 2008). Those communities are direct beneficiaries of ES, while other communities or society at large can be beneficiaries of other services, especially the regulating services, which in turn depend on ecosystems integrity (Benayas et al. 2009).

In Juruti, however, considering biodiversity conservation and other policy goals would arguably not change the intended post-mining land use resulting from the ES approach (Figure 3). Although the forest ecosystem affected by the mine was not pristine, it featured a very good conservation status (CNEC 2005), thus allowing communities to harvest selected resources and benefit from their services. In other possible applications of an ES approach for similar purposes, this may not be the case and rehabilitation goals that aim at maximising provisioning services may clash with a conservationist goal (Ridder 2008).

6. Conclusion

The aim of this research was to understand why and how taking an ecosystem services approach within mine closure planning could help achieve post-mining land use agreeable to communities and mining company. Through interviews with communities and a workshop with mining company staff, we concluded that both parties are not so far off from getting agreement about post-mining land use. However, the current broad rehabilitation goal ‘developing an engagement process with stakeholders aiming to improve mining land rehabilitation…’ does not explicitly incorporate community perspectives. Therefore, using of an ecosystem services approach enabled a focused (on relevant services) rehabilitation goal to be identified that would deliver social and ecological benefits alike.

By working with five communities affected by the Juruti bauxite mining operations, we found the ecosystem services approach to be useful in getting community perspectives about desired post-mining land uses. We also found company staff to be receptive to this approach, because it is a way to involve communities as part of the rehabilitation process – something which is not explicitly required by Brazilian legislation – and to improve rehabilitation monitoring programmes, by focusing on relevant services.

Mine closure planning regulations in this part of Brazil currently fall short of international best practice with respect to involving community, determining post mining land use and follow up. This remains perhaps the greatest challenge faced by affected communities and by mining companies alike. The operators of the Juruti mine already go beyond compliance with environmental regulations to engage with communities affected by their operations, but conflicts do persist.

Insights from this research also suggest that applying an ES approach to mine closure planning is context-dependent and caution should be exerted not to overemphasise provisioning services and downplay regulation services that can be of proportionally lesser importance to local communities, but important at a larger geographical extent.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding

This research was supported by São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)/CAPES [grant number #2014/22927-1], [grant number #2016/23021-1].

Acknowledgements

We thank Alcoa for facilitating access to the site and providing information about Juruti mine. We also thank local communities for answering the interviews and hosting the first author.

Notes

1. Terra firmes are areas in Amazon rainforest forest that are not subject to flooding. These areas usually present higher biodiversity and more biomass than seasonally flooded areas.