By the IEMA – Integrating Sustainability, Business & Community

A complex industrial closure was approaching the hard part, proving it would remain safe, stable, and compliant in an environment where climate change may move the goal posts in the long term future. IEMA – Integrating Sustainability, Business & Community was brought in to answer the question regulators, investors, and communities are all asking: Will this plan still work in 2050?

The brief

Stress-test a full closure plan end to end against plausible climate futures. Translate the findings into concrete actions that shorten the road to sign-off and reduce surprises after handover.

What we did

  • Followed the evidence, not the vibe. We assessed risks under IPCC RCP 2.6, 4.5, 8.5 to 2050, aligned to national sustainability reporting expectations.
  • Broke down silos. Hydrology, geotech, ecology, climate science, and socio-economics were integrated, because landforms, water, and community impacts don’t behave in isolation.
  • Tested what matters. We looked for climate assumptions inside designs and models, covers, caps, retention basins, seals, water balances, flood modelling, not just mentioned in the narrative.
  • Rated controls the way auditors do. Likelihood × consequence across environmental, social, operational, financial, and reputational dimensions, with clear evidence trails.

What we found

  • 19 material risks surfaced: 11 physical (stability, potential subsidence/sinkholes, erosion, surface–groundwater interactions, retained infrastructure) and 8 transition (regulatory shifts, disclosure, reputation, residual-risk governance).
  • The pattern: Many controls were in progress or untested. The work had started, but assurance and climate scenario integration weren’t yet bulletproof.

Commercial impact: Untested controls and ambiguous residual risk are what delay relinquishment. Fixing them brings timelines forward and reduces cost-of-waiting.

The 10 recommendations that changed the trajectory

Here’s where the assessment turned into momentum. We translated risk into ten concrete recommendations, design tweaks, modelling upgrades, and governance shifts, that hard-wired climate futures into the closure program and removed the roadblocks to sign-off. In short: practical steps, clear owners, measurable outcome

  1. Bake climate futures into design specs (RCP 2.6/4.5/8.5) for covers, caps, drainage, storage.
  2. Stand up post-execution monitoring & maintenance with KPIs, triggers, and a realistic budget.
  3. Lock corporate–project alignment on required scenarios and disclosures.
  4. Define a residual-risk framework (ownership, funding, monitoring, reporting).
  5. Re-run flood modelling on the final landform under RCP 4.5/8.5 to validate basin sizing and spillways.
  6. Couple the water balance (surface + groundwater) for post-closure conditions with climate inputs.
  7. Resolve heritage infrastructure pathways to remove safety/liability ambiguity.
  8. Inform seal designs with hydrogeology that reflects future groundwater behaviour.
  9. Adopt climate-ready revegetation (species mix, establishment, success criteria, adaptive management).
  10. Institutionalise regulatory horizon-scanning between corporate and site teams.

Results that matter to decision-makers

For decision-makers, the outcomes are clear: residual risk needs to be acceptable across all climate scenarios; climate futures are required to be embedded as traceable design inputs and validated against extremes; governance needs to be audit-ready with defined roles, artefacts, and decision trails that build regulator and investor confidence.

When to reopen the file (so you don’t get caught out)

There is a need to reopen the assessment whenever the ground shifts, think changes to IPCC scenario assumptions or national reporting rules; updates to closure methodology, final landform, or land use; modifications to water infrastructure or its performance; heightened sensitivity of nearby community assets; or revised corporate risk appetite and disclosure expectations.

The takeaway

If your closure case hinges on “we think this will hold,” expect delays. If it demonstrates how it holds across plausible futures, with evidence in the specs, budgets, and governance, approvals get simpler, and handover gets faster.

Considering a closure in 2025?

IEMA – Integrating Sustainability, Business & Community helps asset owners prove climate resilience, compress approval timelines, and de-risk handover with a practical, evidence-first playbook. If you want your next regulator meeting to start with “we’ve already tested that,” let’s talk.

Go Up