More than ten years ago, the author visited an exploration mining area in western Australia. Before entering the mine site, we were asked to stop our vehicle and then were surprised to be asked to do two unexpected things: first, to wash the wheels and body of the car; and second, to change into clean shoes. Why? The answer was simple: “To prevent invasive species from disrupting the region’s ecological balance. That’s exactly what Western Australian law requires.” At the time, the members of the domestic research team who accompanied the author were deeply shaken: “Mineral exploration can actually be linked to ecology?!” It was from this experience that the author began pondering a fundamental question: How can China’s laws and regulations keep pace with economic and social development? How can we move beyond merely focusing on mine-site environments, land reclamation, or general environmental protection—and instead adopt an ecosystem-based perspective when addressing these issues and revising existing legislation? In this article, the author seeks to provide a typical analysis of why “mining law is also ecological law,” using as a representative case the enactment of the U.S. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The legislative process behind this act and its subsequent impact far exceeded the boundaries of the United States itself.
Mining legislation emphasizes environmental protection.
“Perhaps the best environmental law ever,” is the most distinctive—and socially acclaimed—assessment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act since its enactment in the United States. To this day, this statement remains prominently displayed on the relevant webpage of the U.S. Department of the Interior. To understand why a mining law has earned such high praise, we first need to examine the broader historical context of the time.
In the 1960s and 1970s, developed industrial nations—led by the United States—were swept up in an environmental movement sparked by "Silent Spring," and the mining industry was naturally no exception. Published in the United States in 1962, "Silent Spring" prompted the U.S. federal government and various states to enact a host of laws and regulations by 1977—before the passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act—primarily aimed at strictly regulating pesticides such as DDT and affecting many sectors of the chemical industry. Society as a whole experienced an unprecedented surge in awareness about environmental protection, and discussions and oversight on environmental and ecological issues became increasingly conscious and profound. Naturally, the mining industry, under intense public scrutiny, began to engage in self-reflection and introspection. Legislative bodies took proactive steps, treating the environmental challenges posed by the mining industry as a major focus for innovative legislation. Many states with thriving mining industries have already established stringent environmental regulations governing surface mining operations.
At the time, the U.S. economy was experiencing sustained rapid growth, and the level of resource security could no longer keep pace with economic demand. The energy industry wielded tremendous influence; the capital interests of the mining sector had ample say in shaping and revising the nation’s policies and regulations. Although environmental problems were gradually becoming apparent—and even worsening in some localized areas—various “excuses” put forth by energy conglomerates often left environmentally conscious experts facing frequent setbacks in both legislative efforts and implementation. The enactment of the “Act on the Control and Remediation of Surface Mining” was no exception.
It took several years—from its inception to its passage by Congress—for this law to be enacted. The bill was submitted to Congress in 1972. After several years of repeated revisions, Congress approved it in 1974 and forwarded it to the President. However, then-President Gerald Ford vetoed the proposal, citing concerns about its impact on the coal industry. It wasn't until 1977 that broad consensus emerged across U.S. society regarding the serious environmental and ecological problems caused by the mining industry. Mobilizing public support from all sectors of society and continuously putting pressure on energy corporations finally led to a crucial compromise. Then-President Jimmy Carter signed the law into effect. Thus, a new law was born—one that uses ecological redlines as the benchmark for measuring mining activities.
The "Act on the Control and Remediation of Surface Mining" consists of a total of nine chapters, with particularly detailed provisions regarding remediation efforts. To ensure the effective implementation of this Act, the U.S. government has established a specialized agency—the Office of Surface Mining Control and Reclamation under the Department of the Interior—whose responsibilities, especially those of key personnel, are clearly defined. The Act focuses primarily on how to effectively control the environmental impacts of surface mining. It lays down specific provisions covering relevant legal and technical standards, planning and implementation procedures, associated responsibilities and safeguards—including, in particular, performance bonds—and also includes procedural requirements for various types of activities, such as the approval process for remediation permits, controls over exploration projects that may cause environmental impacts, procedures for public participation, the duties of regulatory agencies, and mechanisms for oversight and enforcement.
The legislative process of the “Law on Control and Remediation of Open-Pit Mining” reflects, on the one hand, the intense competition among various interest groups, and on the other hand, underscores the power of public participation. Ultimately, the concepts of ecological balance, ecological security, and ecological civilization have gained widespread acceptance—including among mining capital. The law is extensive and meticulously detailed, largely because environmental protection and ecology are relatively new fields with broad-ranging implications. Moreover, long-term needs such as technological reserves and talent development must be planned and safeguarded through legal channels.
Four key features that can serve as references.
The “Law on the Control and Remediation of Open-Pit Mining” was born at an opportune moment. Within its legal framework, legal culture, and law enforcement and administrative environment, it bridges the past and the future, developing numerous distinctive features that hold significant reference value.
At the time, the overarching context was the growing demand for environmental protection. However, this law was not limited to environmental protection itself; rather, it introduced the concept of ecological balance into its framework. Over the subsequent decades, the concept of ecological balance undoubtedly had an extremely significant impact on the mining industry and related sectors. Thanks to its forward-thinking nature, it also brought about substantial positive effects on other industries and even society as a whole. This is evident from the high social acclaim it received and the subsequent adoption of its principles by other countries. In Chapter 5 of this law, numerous provisions put forward requirements in the ecological sense. For example, during mining operations, advanced technologies must be employed, and under no circumstances should the concentration of suspended solids entering streams or bodies of water within the mining area exceed the levels stipulated by law. Another example is the requirement regarding the quality of soil used for backfilling after mining activities. Moreover, the law even mandates that, in mining and reclamation operations conducted in specific areas, the original hydrological characteristics of the region’s barren, arid, or semi-barren, semi-arid alluvial valleys must be preserved. Even today, these provisions still appear remarkably forward-thinking. At the time, the reform of the security deposit system was considered innovative. Beyond just figuring out how to establish the security deposits, the most critical aspect was ensuring that remediation efforts—from the start of mining operations all the way through post-closure—were fully implemented, regardless of the reasons behind any delays or issues. Under public oversight, if the government found the remediation work unsatisfactory upon inspection, the security deposit would not be refunded. The system’s provisions regarding the establishment of security deposits and their funding sources were remarkably clear and reasonable, making it readily acceptable to both enterprises and regulatory authorities. This approach later became a model actively emulated by other countries. For mining areas that had already ceased operations before the law came into effect, special funds and dedicated projects will be established to handle their closure. The law also specifies concrete and reasonable methods for raising funds. Experience has shown that these provisions are highly effective. Since ecological restoration in mining areas is an innovative undertaking, this law takes a long-term perspective and includes numerous incentive provisions, encouraging universities and educational institutions to both conduct research on specialized and specific issues and to train and develop specialized professionals for society.
From the outset of the application process, the law stipulates that applicants must describe the environmental conditions and land-use status prior to mining operations, as well as how the mining and reclamation processes will meet the standards and specific requirements prescribed by law. Otherwise, applicants will not be able to obtain mining rights. After exploration or mining operations are initiated, the regulatory authority shall conduct monthly inspections and comprehensive quarterly inspections, without requiring prior notice. Furthermore, the regulatory authority is required to place copies of all inspection data collected at designated locations in the city, county, and state where the mining area is situated, so that the public can access and review such information. The “Regulations on the Control and Remediation of Open-Pit Mining” represented a novel undertaking at the time. The regulations set forth highly detailed and specific requirements—technically sound, procedurally rigorous, and comprehensive in every aspect. Moreover, the provisions regarding how to ensure the effective implementation of the law were remarkably practical and operational. For instance, under the provision on the return of security deposits, not only are regulatory authorities required to assess based on established standards and inspection results, but they must also take into account the operational pressures faced by enterprises, thereby setting reasonable remediation deadlines and specifying conditions under which enterprises can apply for early return of the deposit. The regulations demonstrate a remarkably thoughtful approach toward enterprises. Although this law is titled “Surface Mining,” it also contains relevant provisions for underground mining. It provides procedural guidelines on how to identify areas that are unsuitable for non-coal mining, thereby preventing oversight in the regulation of other mineral types.
Restrictive and effective The design for the most effective regulatory component—public participation—is integrated throughout every stage. From the initiation of the initial procedure to the process of returning the security deposit, specific provisions for public participation are in place at each major milestone. As stipulated by the law, the regulatory authority “shall, in accordance with the requirements of this law, keep verbatim records of each public hearing on public comments and, upon the request of the parties involved or by order of the regulatory authority, make such records available for public review.” After obtaining mining rights, each mining area must erect conspicuous signs at the entrance to the operational zone, clearly indicating the license holder’s name, address, telephone number, and other relevant information. When designating “areas unsuitable for open-pit mining,” “any stakeholder who has already been or will be affected by adverse impacts shall have the right to submit a request to the regulatory authority to designate such areas as unsuitable for open-pit mining.” The public has the right to lodge objections with the government regarding any mining project that may pose environmental risks. These provisions effectively safeguard the voice of the people living in mining areas, enabling them to promptly express their views on the order of production and daily life as well as on environmental quality, to identify problems in a timely manner, and to take corrective actions without delay. The law also provides litigation rights for individuals who have already been or may be adversely affected, and the district courts have jurisdiction over such cases regardless of the nationality of the parties involved or the amount of funds at stake. The oversight and restraint over administrative authorities have become stricter and clearer. For example, “Staff members implementing this law shall not hold any direct or indirect financial interests in the relevant mining areas. Those who deliberately violate this provision shall be subject to a fine of no more than US$2,500, or imprisonment for up to one year, or both.”
Revise in a timely manner Since its promulgation and implementation, this law has undergone multiple revisions, totaling 54 amended provisions, along with numerous supplementary interpretations and clarifications, so that the law can keep pace with changing circumstances and meet administrative needs. For example, the law once stipulated that open-pit mining conducted for commercial purposes, provided it affected no more than 2 hectares of land, would be exempt from the law’s regulations. This provision was subsequently removed through later legislative amendments, under pressure from public opinion and practical realities. When the law was enacted, a “Fund for Remediation of Abandoned Mining Sites” was established, legally designated exclusively for projects initiated before 1977. During the 1990 revision, projects involving abandoned sites formed after that date were added, and the fund’s sources were clarified. Eighty percent of the fund is allocated to statutory mine-reclamation projects, while the remaining 20% is reserved for emergency situations such as landslides and ground subsidence. Residential buildings affected by subsidence caused by underground mining can also apply for assistance from this fund. Overall, this law has undergone the most revisions in terms of remediation efforts. The substantial number of revisions covers both funding and procedural aspects.
In fact, shortly after the enactment of this U.S. law, our country was entering a period of reform and opening-up. Over the ensuing decades, government delegations—both domestic and international—continuously traveled to developed countries to study their mining industries. In their reports upon return, many of these delegations highlighted environmental and ecological issues in the development of the mining sector. However, due to various limitations, our efforts in this area have still been somewhat disappointing. Today, “ecological civilization,” as a national strategy and as a core interest of the entire nation, has become a societal consensus. Taking advantage of this favorable momentum, there is great potential for advancing ecological balance in the mining sector.
