Project Closure: Factors that contribute to smooth(er) community transitions

The adage is true: all good things come to an end. This could include a once-prosperous project that stimulated a local economy, fostering community dependance. As with any resource, the presence of the commodity and the rate of extraction will determine the typical life of a project – ranging from as short as a few years to decades. Considering this, the impact to community can vary significantly but the preplanning for closure at the onset of a project with a lens on community wellbeing is vital. With closure planning often intertwined in the environmental assessment process early in project life, it has the possibility of being disconnected from the reality at the very end.

As your project reaches end-of-life, consider these best practice factors to ensure a well-thought-out community transition:

1. Develop an entire program approach: Closure planning can be particularly sensitive and making sure that one technical area of expertise doesn’t undermine the other will ensure proponents or communities aren’t blindsided or compromised throughout closure activities. In doing so, consider a one-program approach that interconnects six critical areas in closure: social, environmental, regulatory, reclamation, engineering and decommissioning, and legal
2. Consider risks to both project and community: There are two different types of risks to assess. Those to the project (reputation, costs, litigation, technical feasibility, schedule, etc.) and those to the community (loss of livelihood, energy security, community cohesion and physical displacement, etc.). Both need to be addressed and managed for their unique attributes. ?
3. A strong knowledge base supports strong decisions: When developing a closure strategy for your own budget and planning cycle or as part of a regulatory requirement, good strategy will always depend on the homework done to generate a strong baseline assessment. Prior to any site closure activities, it will be important to understand the socioeconomic baseline of community, regulatory requirements including impacts on Indigenous rights, land ownership, stakeholder identification, sustainable economies, among others. ?
4. Determining appropriate solutions: Options, options, options. In the closure planning phase, there are multiple community closure options that come with varying costs and levels of effort to implementation. These solutions will hinge on the risks that you’ve identified during your risk review process. Let your creativity flow – it could include sustainable economies for long term community viability after closure, community resettlement including compensation frameworks, or establishing a new socioeconomic engine connected to the activities of closure (waste, demolishing, etc.). Whatever the solution, co-develop it with community.
5. Do closure planning early: Many countries require closure planning as part of the environmental assessment (EA) process. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC), the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment in Australia to name a few. Through an EA process, project proponents are required to scope key issues, conduct baseline studies with associated impacts and mitigations, develop a detailed closure plan, and engage directly with stakeholders on that plan.

Remember, while all good things come to an end, with thoughtful planning, the end can be just as rewarding as the beginning. So, let's ensure that when one door closes, another opportunity opens, benefiting community and leaving a positive legacy.

Note: Tip Tuesday is a collection of my thoughts and a few ‘how to’ insights to share knowledge with fellow practitioners