Introduction

Functioning ecosystems supply ecosystem services (ES) that generate multiple benefits important for human wellbeing (MEA 2005; IPBES 2019). However, increasingly prevalent large-scale developments have the potential to negatively impact ecosystems and their benefits to people. Mining, and in particular large-scale surface mining, has the potential to affect human wellbeing (Boldy et al. 2021). This is particularly important for many Indigenous peoples living within or nearby a mining region, who maintain close cultural connections to natural ecosystems that supply ES which are key determinants of wellbeing (Sangha et al. 2011). Many provisioning ES such as the supply of food, medicinal resources and timber provide many benefits to Indigenous communities where natural resources are often linked to cultural values identity (e.g., traditional foods, medicinal recipes that have been passed down generations for hundreds of years) (Coyne et al. 2022). Current literature assessing the impacts of mining on ES focuses on regulating services, specifically, the impacts to carbon sequestration and erosion prevention (Boldy et al. 2021). Very few studies assess impacts of mining on provisioning and cultural services, particularly in areas of high biodiversity and nearby to Indigenous communities (Boldy et al. 2021).

Understanding the links between ES, people and land disturbances is crucial to ensure that ES can be sustainable managed (IPBES 2019; Boldy et al. 2021; Mandle et al. 2021). However, despite an increase in ES research over the last decade, some impacts to ES, such as mining, have received less attention. Mining, like many other land disturbance types, has the potential to interact with all elements of the ES framework (Fig. 1). Mining can disrupt human and social capital (e.g., cultural values, needs, social preferences), which affects demand for ES (Blanco et al. 2018). Removal of vegetation for mining roads, infrastructure and mine pits directly impact natural capital (biodiversity and the physical environment) and can also impact ES supply (i.e., the biophysical conditions and processes derived from natural capital to generate a benefit for society) such as the availability of food, medicine, timber etc., derived from plant species (Tallis et al. 2012). A change in the benefits obtained from ES (e.g. calories from food, health benefits of plants, monetary exchange for products produced from plants) can feed back to impact social capital such as cultural values and people’s needs.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework linking environmental impact (mining) to natural and social capital and ecosystem services; framework adapted from Mitchell et al. (2015) and Boldy et al. (2021). Solid lines indicate direct impacts as a result of mining and dotted lines indicate interactions between ES framework. Biodiversity and natural capital are directly impacted by mining activities which influenced the potential ES supply available. When ES supply is diminished, this reduces the wellbeing benefits that people obtain (e.g. tangible benefits such as food and water or intangible benefits such as cultural identity, mental enjoyment from being outside in nature etc. Whilst this framework can be applied in any mining/community and refer to any specific ES, this study uses this framework to focus on the impacts to provisioning ES valued by local Indigenous peoples

Full size image

For many Indigenous peoples, assessing the impacts to ES is crucial, not only to maintain people’s physical and mental wellbeing, but also other relational and cultural values (Chan et al. 2016). Within the broader ES research sphere, increased studies are suggesting expanding current ES approaches to include cultural and Indigenous values (Sangha et al. 2011; Chan et al. 2016; Ban et al. 2018; Stoeckl et al. 2021). In an Australian context, many Indigenous people are intimately connected with nature and their local ecosystems, often assuming responsibility for the care and maintenance of these ecosystems as custodians of the land (Altman et al. 2009; Sangha et al. 2018). This connection with nature encompasses physical, human, and sacred dimensions that are uniquely reflected in a commonly used term ‘country’, used to describe the Indigenous peoples’ traditional Homelands such as lands, waterways, and seas (Pert et al. 2015; Cohen 2017; Sangha et al. 2018). When considering the impacts of mining on ES highly valued by Indigenous peoples, such as the supply of traditional food, the impacts of the removal of vegetation (i.e., natural capital), would not only result in a loss of ES benefit (i.e., food consumed), but may also impact people’s identity, connection to country and other cultural values (Preece et al. 2016; Coyne et al. 2022).

Despite the potential impacts mining may have on ES valued by Indigenous people, the mining, rehabilitation and closure process is currently falling well short of acknowledging their deep and intricate relationships with their country, including values that often fall outside of modern economics, legislation, and EIA processes (O’Faircheallaigh 2009; Sangha and Russell-Smith 2017). Currently, mining companies conduct environment impact assessments (EIAs) to identify areas important to local people and of environmental significance (IFC 2012; ICMM 2020). Efforts to conserve biodiversity globally include well-developed best practices and systems for data collection, alongside recognised lists of threatened species, based on rarity or vulnerability (Cardinale et al. 2012; IUCN 2022). Similarly, assessing the impacts on cultural heritage is a requirement for many developments, including mining. In Australia, State and Commonwealth legislation require assessments of both non-Indigenous and Indigenous cultural heritage places and values as a part of EIA and mitigation planning (Commonwealth of Australia 2016). Under current Australian heritage legislation that frames EIA (e.g., the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 QLD, or the Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003 QLD), the focus of heritage protection efforts relates to tangible sites (often archaeological sites including artefacts, such as stone tools, or evidence of human use, such as scar trees) (McGrath and Lee 2016; Tran and Barcham 2018). These sites are then defined as discrete “way-points” on a map and separated from the cultural landscape that supports them (Byrne and Nugent 2004). This focus is a core misunderstanding of cultural heritage management, whereby many intangible or ethnographic sites that provide multiple benefits to Indigenous people, and that are rarely visible to non-Indigenous people or those who do not hold customary knowledge, are typically not recognised. Examples include Story Places and species of animals and plants that provide tangible (e.g., bush food and medicine) and intangible benefits (e.g., totem animals, cultural knowledge). None of these examples are included in cultural heritage or biodiversity impact assessments (Tran & Barcham 2018).

In some instances, ecosystems supplying valuable ES coincide with areas important for biodiversity conservation (Altman 1987; Hill et al. 2013; Clark et al. 2014; Heiner et al. 2019). For example, in Australia, many permanent and semi-permanent water places are important for biodiversity, ES and culture (Heiner et al. 2019). However, in other cases, links between biodiversity, ES and cultural values, are less clear (Graves et al. 2017). For example, areas important for cultural practices, such as scar trees representing historic interactions with the land, may not overlap with areas that are rich in species or support endemic species protected under environmental legislation. Problems arise here as many benefits of ES fall between the umbrellas of “biodiversity” and “cultural heritage” and are thus outside the scope of regulatory requirements for mine planning.

A unique opportunity exists to assess the regional impacts of mining on ES that are highly valuable to the wellbeing of Indigenous people whose Homelands coincide with active and proposed mining operations. Our case study region, western cape york peninsula (CYP) in northern Australia, is an area with high biodiversity, ES, and cultural values, yet is also exposed to an expanding large-scale bauxite mining industry (Winer et al. 2012; Annandale et al. 2021). Using our case study, we aim to assess the spatial distribution of plant species providing provisioning ES and highlight areas containing these species that have either been lost to mining already or will be lost to new developments in future. We seek to understand: (1) which ecosystems contain culturally significant plant species and where they are located in respect to mining areas; (2) whether areas containing large numbers of culturally significant plant species are protected under current environmental management plans focused on biodiversity impacts, and; (3) which ES will be lost due to planned (and approved) future mining operations. Results from this study highlight the importance of considering mining landscapes not only for their biodiversity value, but also for ES that are important to people’s wellbeing, such as the benefits from culturally significant plant species. This study provides a novel approach and discussion to inform policymakers and regulators on the design of a detailed assessment of ES important to local people, contributing to improved management throughout all stages of mining. The implications for the management of ES in mining are discussed with suggestions for improved mine site management to benefit both nature and people.

Method

This study uses a multi-step methodology including qualitative and quantitative methods to assess impacts of bauxite mining on culturally significant plant species. First, a literature review was conducted in addition to facilitated group discussions, which identified plant species of high value to Indigenous people living in the towns of Napranum, Weipa and Aurukun who have been or will be impacted by mining. Second, based on these discussions and existing literature indicating the importance of certain plants in the region to the local people (Crowley et al. 2021), we mapped the distribution of plants providing provisioning ES to Indigenous people in western CYP and the extent to which they have been/will be impacted by vegetation clearing for bauxite mining.

Study area and mining lease

Cape York Peninsula, located in far north Queensland in northern Australia (Fig. 2) is a remote, isolated region with many diverse natural ecosystems that maintain a high level of integrity (Winer et al. 2012). The region has an extensive history of human occupation that has sustainably managed many diverse ecosystems including wetlands, monsoonal riparian regions and rivers, tropical rainforest, heath and grasslands, dune systems and tropical savannah woodlands (Hinchley 2013). Despite the natural beauty of the region and approximately 137,000 square kilometres of ecosystems with global ecological significance there have been approvals in the region for some high impact developments including agriculture, mining and infrastructure. Since the 1960s, there has been a rapid expansion of mining activity across the region, particularly bauxite mining on the mid-western side of the peninsula (Winer et al. 2012; Annandale et al. 2021).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Left—The western Cape York Peninsula region showing the extent of the two major bauxite mining leases in Western Cape York (ML 7024 and ML 7031). Right–Map outlining the two study areas (Amrun and East Weipa Mining Areas) within ML 7024 for the focus of this study. The East Weipa Mining Area selected above is now moving towards the latter stages (i.e. closure stages) of mining and the Amrun Mining Area is in early stages of mining (i.e., development and active mining)

Full size image

In addition to outstanding environmental values, western CYP includes significant cultural heritage value for many Indigenous groups. Oral stories and other cultural and archaeological evidence confirm Indigenous peoples’ occupation of the region for many thousands of years (Bailey 1977; Cribb 1986). There are at least five Indigenous Traditional Owner groups within the study region (Fig. 2), all of whom maintain strong connections to their Homelands (Boldy 2022). The region is embedded with cultural and spiritual significance, including a wealth of traditional cultural and ecological knowledge, with many sites and objects important for stories, songs, and customs (Suchet 1996). The preservation of traditional knowledge is vital, as it underpins the Indigenous people’s way of life, land management, and caring for Country.

Several national and multinational companies hold bauxite mining leases within the region, with rio tinto weipa (RTW) the largest leaseholder and active mining company (as shown in Fig. 2) primarily operating under Mining Leases (ML) 7024 and 7031. As bauxite ore reserves deplete around Weipa and northern areas of the leases south of the Wenlock River, RTW have established a large bauxite mine (Amrun project) south of the Embley River, which will expand over the next 40 years to include much of the coastal land between Weipa and Aurukun. This will impact traditional Aboriginal Homelands. Local Wik and Wik Waya Traditional Owners were included in environmental, social, and cultural impacts assessments conducted by RTW during the approvals process for the Amrun project. The mine lease area for the Amrun project covers an area approximately 106,000 ha and is expected to have an operational mine life of 40 years, depending on annual production rates (RTA 2014). Rehabilitation of mine sites around Weipa and Mapoon involve progressive rehabilitation, with the objective to establish a self-sustaining vegetation community using appropriate native tree, shrub, and grass species (Rio Tinto 2019). Currently, there are no specific objectives targeting the management of lost/affected ES during mine rehabilitation stages (Rio Tinto 2019).

Identifying plant species providing provisioning ES

To map ES, we performed a literature review of studies from the Aurukun and Weipa region that identify plants used by local Indigenous people that supply provisioning ES (e.g. either food, fresh water, raw materials, medicinal resource). We focused on reviewing ethnobotanical studies of the area, and past studies to obtain information regarding these plants. From this, we highlighted a list of plant species (66 in total) that supply provisioning ES to the community. The provisioning ES benefit of each of these culturally significant plants was recorded as either food, medicine, raw material (i.e., utensils, arts/crafts) and fuel (Table 1—Supplementary Information) as per the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005).

Mapping the presence of significant plant species

Data for plant species that supply provisioning ES benefits within two different stages of bauxite mining were used to quantify both the current and future potential impacts of planned and approved mining within the study region and ML 7024 (RTA 2014). To quantify current impacts, we focused on an area within the East Weipa Mining Area close to Weipa and Napranum where ore deposits were mined in the 1960–1980 period. These sites have been subject to progressive rehabilitation and are scheduled for closure within the next two to ten years (Rio Tinto 2019). To explore future impacts, we used the proposed Amrun project, situated between Weipa and Aurukun. Polygons of these two mine areas (East Weipa Mining area and Amrun project) were acquired from Qld Globe (https://georesglobe.information.qld.gov.au) and the standard 200 m buffer zones were mapped. Buffer zones are established to prevent mining in areas with high conservation values, for the protection of riparian and coastal areas, locations with identified cultural values and or sites, areas with environmentally sensitive vegetation and or hydrological features. Rio Tinto Weipa has an established standard buffer zone of approximately 200 m, however areas of ‘special significance’ requiring increased protection will include an increased buffer zone (RTA 2014).

To confirm distribution of plant species, we used Regional Ecosystem (RE) mapping units, the current accepted method for mapping areas of “ecological significance” in the mining region (RTA 2014). REs are vegetation communities in a bioregion that are consistently associated with a particular combination of geology, landform, and soil (Sattler & Williams 1999). To map plant species and areas of high ES value, firstly, we identified current RE’s within the study region (24 total). Secondly, we searched for each individual plant species in each RE within the study region using the Queensland herbarium’s regional ecosystem description database (REDD) (QLD Herbarium 2021). However, vegetation descriptions within the RE database are described by the predominant strata, which focuses on species contributing the most to above-ground biomass. For species that were not included in the predominant strata, we used point data of recorded species locations from the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA) to determine which RE these species are located within (ALA 2021). Thirdly, we generated maps of the number of culturally significant plant species based on the REs. All REs in the study area were ranked ‘very low’ to ‘very high’, depending on how many species were likely to be present in each (see Appendix), according to the number of plants that were listed in each RE. This ranking was then linked to pre-clearing RE maps (QLD Herbarium 2021) within the mining lease using the predominant RE in each polygon. Maps of remnant REs also exist, however, as the landscape had not undergone any clearing prior to mining, these were not useful in mapping vegetation.

To assess how mining operations affect plants providing ES, we overlaid active mining zones including any areas such as mine pits, roads or infrastructure, as well as protected zones where mining does not occur as outlined in the EIA for the project (RTA 2014). These protected zones included designated buffer zones around ecologically significant areas (predominantly riparian areas) protected under Queensland’s environmental legislation (RTA 2014). For the purpose of this study, only ecologically significant areas (riparian zones) were included in mapping as cultural heritage data is highly sensitive to Indigenous people living in the area and not available for public distribution. The maps generated from this process demonstrated the intersection of REs included in buffer zones, and those that will be, or have been impacted by mining. Using this information, we then identified species of high concern due to being solely located in impacted REs, by searching if they are present or not within other REs not directly impacted by mining.

We identified the culturally important plant species that will be lost to mining, and compiled information on the plant type (e.g. tree, shrub, herb) using the ALA website and WildNet species profiles (Queensland Government 2021) and reviewed current literature for each plant species to determine cultural significance and traditional uses/benefits to local Indigenous people. We focused on plants that supply culturally significant provisioning ES (specifically food, traditional medicine, timber/fuel, and raw materials for arts and crafts and cultural and spiritual sustenance), which are recognised as high value to Indigenous people in our study area.

Results

Of the 24 REs that were identified to occur across the East Weipa Mining area and Amrun Mining area, woodland to open forest of Eucalyptus tetrodonta and Corymbia nesophila (RE 3.5.36b) contained the largest number (n = 32) of plant species providing provisioning ES. This RE was also the most extensive RE within the study area (East Weipa and Amrun combined), covering 89% (1135 km2) of the region (Fig. 3). RE 3.5.36b was also the only RE ranked as ‘very high’ in terms of the number of culturally significant plant species (32 species). Other REs with a large number of culturally significant species included 3.5.36a (13 species), with a very similar vegetation structure and composition to 3.5.36b, and RE 3.2.2 (12 species), which is semi-deciduous vine thicket forest, found typically along drainage/riparian zones.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Spatial patterns of regional ecosystems (REs) containing plant species that supply ES important to local Indigenous people. Extent of REs within ML7024 within buffer zones shown at left, and REs directly impacted by mining activities (i.e., not protected) shown at right

Full size image

Despite RE 3.5.36b containing the largest number of culturally significant plant species, this ecosystem was the least protected (by total area) from mining operations under current management plans and regulatory requirements. RE 3.5.36b grows on the bauxite rich laterite soils of western CYP. In East Weipa mining operations, this RE once covered 99% (177 km2) of land already disturbed by mining and will eventually represent 82% (855 km2) of the land to be disturbed by the Amrun Mine under current proposals. REs within the protected buffer systems (primarily riparian vegetation and estuaries) contained fewer culturally significant species (20 or less species) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

This figure shows: a the extent (area) of already lost vegetation and vegetation that will be lost due to mining alongside the extent (area) of vegetation protected in buffer zones within the two study areas b the plant type of culturally significant species in RE 3.5.36b, and c the benefits the plants provide to local Indigenous peoples. Grey dotted box indicates RE 3.5.36b, the RE most impacted by mining

Full size image

Within RE 3.5.36b, 32 species we found to supply at least one of four ES (according to the literature review), with the provision of food and medicine being the most common (Fig. 4 and Table 1—Supplementary Information). A large majority of these species (n = 21) also have high potential biomass storage capacity (representing trees and shrubs), reflecting the structure of the RE.

Discussion

As mining operations expand, particularly in remote and culturally significant landscapes of northern Australia, understanding the distributions of ES is critical to ensure effective social and environmental management throughout the life of mines. The management and compliance requirements of new mine developments and old mining operations increasingly requires addressing impacts on biodiversity, ES, and Indigenous people (Commonwealth of Australia 2016, ICMM 2020). However, the impacts of mining on many ES, particularly those providing cultural benefits to Indigenous people, remain unknown at most operations and are under-represented in the literature. Here, we mapped the spatial distribution of areas containing some culturally significant plant species important to local Indigenous people for supplying ES in a region impacted by bauxite mining development. Our results highlight that current management objectives towards protecting biodiversity in mining regions (i.e., through the use of buffer zones), does not provide protection for many plant species that supply significant ES to local Indigenous peoples. Many plant species that supply ES to local people are located in open woodland areas preferentially cleared by mining operations. We discuss the implications of the removal of such plant species for local Indigenous peoples, potential opportunities to utilise ES pre-mining and suggest ways to improve post-mining vegetation management to enhance or compensate for lost ES.

Links between biodiversity and ecosystem services important to local Indigenous peoples

The establishment of mining buffer zones (eg riparian areas) did not protect the majority of plant species that supply ecosystem services and cultural significance to local Indigenous peoples. Biodiversity-related factors, such as species richness (García and Martínez 2012) and vulnerable vegetation communities, are important for providing many ES (Lecina-Diaz et al. 2019). For example, in our case study areas, buffer zones in riparian zones and adjacent vegetation (protected from mining for its biodiversity significance), is highly important for food (particularly fish, crustaceans, reptiles and some mammals), fresh water supply, medicine and other materials (such as bark and timber for building purposes) (TFAP,2019). Biodiversity management aims to protect sensitive ecosystems (e.g. riparian zones) and species that are highly threatened with extinction or have low populations in nature. However, many plant species considered important for food and other ES important to local Indigenous peoples living in Western Cape York occur in large expanses (i.e., open woodland areas), which are not protected under current biodiversity management (Hynes and Chase 1982; Morrison et al. 2010). Biodiversity is not always positively related to ES (Graves et al. 2017). Some studies show neutral and negative relationships between priority areas for biodiversity and the provision of ES (Ricketts et al. 2016). This is particularly true for many cultural ES, which may instead be related to one specific species or feature, rather than other biodiversity indicators or threats to them (Daniel et al. 2012; Graves et al. 2017).

The potential impacts of ES loss for local Indigenous peoples

The clearing, removal and burning to waste savannah woodland vegetation undoubtedly impacts Indigenous people’s wellbeing (Sangha and Russell-Smith 2017), cultural values and biodiversity values. Many species identified in woodlands that are not protected from mining operations have high traditional food value, contributing to the diet of Indigenous peoples in western CYP, as well as providing opportunities for local, Indigenous utilisation of timber and non-timber forest products based on traditional bushfoods and medicines (Hinchley 2013, TFAP 2019). Some of these plants include: yams (Dioscorea transversa), traditionally a very important diet staple; fruits and berries from species such as Nonda Plum (Parinari nonda), Bush Banana (Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. Tropica), ‘sugarbag’ or native honey harvested in native trees and others (Table 1—Supplementary Information). Whilst this study focuses on the provisioning ES value of such foods, it is important to note that these food species also provide other benefits. This includes the mental health benefits of being on Country with family, sharing traditional knowledge, connecting with ancestors, and performing cultural activities that build cultural connection.

The use of woodland resources for functions other than food is also significant. Plants are collected for use as traditional art and craft materials, medicine, making tools and timber for contemporary and more traditional uses, as highlighted in Table 1—Supplementary Information. The loss of many of these species due to mining reduces the region’s availability of plant species such as Springwood (Calophyllum bicolor) and Roth’s Wattle (Acacia Rothii) used in spear making, (Erythrophleum chlorostachys) Ironwood used to create tools for food harvesting and food preparation and Darwin Stringybark (Eucalyptus tetrodonta) which has important uses for its timber and bark. Although currently, a combination between modern and traditionally-hand crafted tools and materials are used, knowledge of traditional methods for how to use these plants is still strong and shared among family groups, particularly on Wik country and around Aurukun (TFAP 2019).

Despite the importance of provisioning ES, in areas where local Indigenous peoples’ traditional Homelands are impacted by mining, there are growing concerns among elders about a decline in cultural knowledge and place-based identity among the younger generation (Annandale et al. 2021). This is an increasing concern particularly when access to traditional Homelands is altered throughout all stages of mining. Although implications of losing such species from savannah woodlands in mining environments may not be considered of concern from a biodiversity standpoint (i.e., as they are not listed as threatened/vulnerable under environmental protection legislation), particularly because they continue to exist elsewhere across CYP, there are major implications for local Indigenous peoples (Cohen 2017). Clearing of a significant land mass (1135km2 in our case study areas alone) is planned over the coming years for mining operations, and this will not only reduce the ability for local Indigenous peoples to access certain areas to be cleared but also impact cultural connections to Country. There are many ways that Indigenous peoples are connected to their landscape in the study region, including the place itself and its social and physical elements (i.e., biodiversity, plants, animals, water), which are vital to maintain place attachment and people’s sense of identity (TFAP 2019). Removing ecosystems and species that are culturally significant across the landscape may also remove the ability for Indigenous peoples to maintain those place-based attachments, which often cover smaller areas than entire region or State, where biodiversity and conservation status of species are decided.

Opportunities to obtain benefits from the vegetation cleared for mining

Recognising the importance of ES and incorporating them into mine management and mine closure plans may provide new opportunities for local Indigenous peoples to access and benefit from ES throughout the life of a mine. For example, in many mining regions, including northern Australia, vegetation is cleared and burned to waste in preparation for mining (Meadows et al. 2020). Whilst some forest products may be salvaged, such as commercially viable timber, the majority is burned to waste and the ability of ecosystems to supply services is lost (Feary 2007). Recent studies suggest that these practices do not align with local Indigenous peoples’ cultural beliefs and practices (Annandale et al. 2021). Instead, local Indigenous peoples envisage that all forest products be utilised prior to mining in support of Indigenous livelihoods through harvesting of forest products with additional environmental outcomes. This includes salvage harvesting of high-quality timber species (including Eucalyptus tetrodonta, C. nesophila and Erythrophleum chlorostachys) located in woodland (RE 3.5.36b) to be cleared for mining. Establishing timber operations in the study area has been demonstrated as commercially viable in recent years, with Wik Timber, an Indigenous forestry business, supplying commercial quantities of timber harvested from the Amrun Project since 2018. In addition to timber, opportunities exist to collect a range of other forest resources pre-clearing, including bushfoods from plants that can be used locally or sold commercially similarly, materials such as bark, timber, and tubers for natural dyes for traditional art and crafts also have potential for pre-mining harvest and utilisation by local Indigenous art centres in Napranum and Aurukun (Feary 2007; Annandale et al. 2021).

While harvesting natural resources during prior to mining could provide some financial benefit to local people, it does not ensure that local Indigenous peoples will continue to obtain ES benefits during mining and post-mining, nor would it ensure their compensation for long-term ES loss. Here lies a major opportunity for mining companies to improve engagement with local Indigenous peoples and Traditional Owners of the land in which mining occurs on an informed basis to better understand the ES to be lost to mining. Some mitigation measures may require commercial contracts with local Indigenous peoples so they can secure finance for plant and equipment for supply of services such as mulching forests cleared for mining, additional infrastructure for Indigenous community-run plant nurseries, bushfood gardens and associated accommodation for such activities. While such activities do not return the original ES supply lost due to mining, they may provide some compensation for the ES benefits lost and, at the very least, contribute to maintaining access to them throughout the life of mine while site access is restricted (Preece et al. 2016). However, for any mitigation measures or ES benefit substitutions to suffice, this must be proposed and agreed by Indigenous peoples on an informed basis whose wellbeing may be impacted by a change in ES supply due to mining (Bond and Kelly 2021).

Post-mining vegetation management to enhance or compensate for lost ecosystem services

Despite a lack of evidence for the long-term success of returning ES in mine rehabilitation in western CYP, there are many short-term impacts of the removal of forest resources (Suchet 1996; Feary 2008). Evidence of successful restoration of eucalypt woodlands post-mining from an ecological perspective, let alone ES, is limited in northern Australia (Annandale et al. 2021). There are few studies assessing the success of mine rehabilitation in restoring local native forest in the study region (Erskine et al. 2008; Gould 2012) but consensus is that mine rehabilitation efforts to date have been unsuccessful in restoring woodland of a similar composition and structure as the pre-clearing vegetation (Annandale et al. 2021). Without transparent monitoring data on the success of plant species in mine rehabilitation, it will be difficult to establish the extent to which provisioning ES, such as foods and medicine, may be returned post-mining. Whilst progressive rehabilitation is required to be undertaken in the region, many problems exist with the re-establishment of newly assembled mixtures of seeds and plants. Additionally, many species that contribute towards provisioning ES are trees, and in some cases (e.g., timber species such as Eucalyptus tetrodonta, Corymbia nesophila and Erythrophleum chlorostachys) planting such species could require 20 + years to provide benefits (Lamb et al. 2015).

Even if the supply of significant plant species were to be maintained during mining or returned through successful mine site rehabilitation, additional concerns arise due to a loss of access to these sites during and after mining (Annandale et al. 2021). A loss, of generational knowledge regarding traditional management of Country, including how to utilise plants in traditional ways, represents a growing concern for many regions of the globe, even. In Western Cape York, the transfer of this knowledge is key to successful land management (TFAP 2019). However, in recent years, access to traditional lands and their ES has declined with the enforcement of mine lease access restrictions, meaning that many of these benefits cannot be obtained even prior to mining activities (RTA 2014). Along with identifying areas providing ES, understanding the complex interactions between species and Indigenous peoples’ needs and abilities is critical for management throughout the life of mines, which in our study is set to last for more than 50 years (spanning more than two generations within the community).

Recommendations for including valuable ES in mining management

Mining companies need to support an informed discussion with Indigenous peoples’ to explore opportunities and plan how the loss of ES can be minimised during all stages of mining. These recommendations can be implemented alongside existing policies, procedures and management measures. Applying additional management for ES in mining regions will require implementation of internationally recognised principles of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) (Commonwealth of Australia 2016). The largest ML holder within the study region, Rio Tinto, has committed to strengthening the application of FPIC principles (Rio Tinto 2022) and if applied could ensure that expectations for ES management are met. This applies to all areas of impact, including ES. In Australia, Indigenous peoples’ perspectives and expectations are rarely considered or addressed for the management of mines, with limited examples of how ES can be managed throughout the life of mine using Indigenous perspectives (Annandale et al. 2021). Maintaining FPIC regarding impacts on ES across all stages of mining through continual engagement that meets Indigenous peoples’ expectations is crucial in developing management plans that maintain ES benefits throughout the life of mines. This is particularly important for mine closure, where Indigenous communities must have a say in how the land will be used post-mining.

Combining the strategy of ES function mitigation measures with progressive rehabilitation plans may help achieve sustainable mine closure outcomes and a more comprehensive set of post-mining land use goals. Progressive mine rehabilitation is key for achieving biodiversity and ecosystem functioning goals. However, with mixed outcomes of current rehabilitation in the study region and an extensive time lag for the supply of ES to return, many problems exist for the community to obtain ES benefits post-mining. Whilst these development opportunities do not account for the natural supply of ES lost with the removal of habitat and vegetation for mining, they could present on-going positive benefits for local Indigenous peoples’ physical and mental wellbeing. In addition, these developments align with post-mining expectations and outcomes sought by local Indigenous peoples of a mixed-use forested landscape, as outlined in Annandale et al. (2021). They also align well with goals set by government and mining companies to reduce waste, carbon emissions and apply FPIC with improved Indigenous engagement in mining developments.

Effectively mitigating impacts of mining on ES requires a collaborative and informed approach between industry, government, and local Indigenous peoples. Currently, there are uncertainties for where ES fits in the EIA process. Although some similarities exist for how ES benefit people, measuring the impacts of mining on biodiversity or cultural heritage does not equate to assessing impacts on the ES considered most valuable to Indigenous people. Current impact assessment and regulatory requirements in Australia emphasise conducting impact assessments for biodiversity and cultural heritage protection. However, this does not guarantee that the benefits Indigenous peoples obtain from land affected by mining operations are included and restored post-mining. Effective management of ES requires on-going consultation with local Indigenous peoples following internationally recognised principles of FPIC (Commonwealth of Australia 2016) whereby local Indigenous peoples are informed of the potential impacts on all ES including provisioning ES and involved in application of mitigation measures.

Data use, limitations of the study and future research

Our results provide a better understanding of the potential impacts mining has on ES in western Cape York, highlighting the need to include ES in EIAs alongside biodiversity and cultural heritage assessment. However, we recognise that there are limitations towards this study including firstly; a reliance on publicly available data to map plant species instead of data collected in the field. Applying only publicly available data may not represent exact distributions of all species across RE’s within the study region unlike other assessments such as forest plots and on-ground species identification and mapping. Similarly, future consultations with Indigenous community members and Traditional Owners will provide more context regarding ES, including where they are located, how the plants are used and their importance in local culture. We recognise that this research study is an initial assessment of the impacts to ES, with significant potential for expansion. This work can be expanded by conducting field work alongside Traditional Owners to gather field data for ES (not just including plant species) as well as conducting workshops and consultation with Indigenous communities and mining industry to understand both the value of ES from the perspective of local people and how ES can be integrated into current mining management. Whilst we only focused on provisioning ES in this study, there is major potential to assess other ES, in particular cultural ES which are rarely considered regarding mining operations (Boldy et al. 2021).

Concluding remarks

The results of this study support growing evidence for the need to assess the impacts of mining on ES while also highlighting challenges in managing ES for both Indigenous people and mining companies. The ES benefits already lost because of bauxite mining activities in western CYP include many traditional food and medicine plants that continue to contribute to the local Indigenous people’s health and wellbeing. As mining continues to rapidly increase in western CYP, there will likely be rapid declines of provisioning ES, which is a great concern for many Indigenous communities surrounded these mining operations. Whilst this study focuses on provisioning ES, with a specific focus on the benefits plants provide, there remains larger discussions to be had regarding the impact on all ES that are valued by local peoples in mining environments. We provide recommendations for the mining industry to incorporate ES into mining management plans. These recommendations, if adopted, could assist mining operators and other stakeholders attempting to protect both biodiversity and ES in mining environments. Northern Australia represents major opportunities for future research regarding the impacts of bauxite mining on ES and how these will be managed throughout the life of mining operations and post-mining where land will be rehabilitated and returned to local Indigenous peoples and Traditional Owners.