Environmental DNA and the Question of Trust in Mine Rehabilitation
The mining industry has never struggled to promise rehabilitation. The harder task has always been proving it.
Now, Anglo American says it is turning to environmental DNA — known as eDNA — to independently measure ecological recovery at its rehabilitated coal mine sites in Queensland’s Bowen Basin. If applied rigorously and transparently, the technology could mark a meaningful shift in how mining companies account for their environmental footprint.
Environmental DNA works by detecting microscopic genetic traces left behind by plants, animals, fungi and bacteria in soil, water and air. The technique is already well established in aquatic ecology and conservation biology, where it has been used for over a decade to detect rare or elusive species with high sensitivity and minimal disturbance.
Its appeal to mining companies is obvious: eDNA can identify a wide range of organisms without trapping, tagging, or visual surveys — methods that are costly, labour-intensive and often incomplete.
Anglo American reports that it has begun applying eDNA sampling across multiple rehabilitated mine sites, using soil and water samples to complement conventional flora and fauna surveys. According to the company, the data is helping to confirm that rehabilitated areas are being recolonised by native species.
There is nothing controversial about the science itself. Peer-reviewed research has repeatedly shown that eDNA can reliably detect species presence, sometimes even outperforming traditional survey methods in terms of sensitivity. Where the debate begins is not whether eDNA works, but how its results are interpreted and governed.
Environmental DNA does not measure abundance, population health, or ecosystem function on its own. It detects presence — sometimes from transient or historical traces. Without careful sampling design, replication, and long-term baselines, eDNA data can be misused to imply ecological recovery where deeper structural restoration has not yet occurred.
To its credit, Anglo American has stated that eDNA is being used alongside — not instead of — established monitoring programs. This distinction matters. When used as a complementary tool, eDNA can strengthen rehabilitation assessment by widening the detection net and reducing observer bias.
The company has also begun trialling airborne eDNA sampling — an emerging research area that aims to capture genetic material suspended in the air. While promising, this technique remains largely experimental in terrestrial environments and should be treated as exploratory rather than definitive.
The broader significance of Anglo American’s move lies less in the technology itself and more in what it signals. Mining companies are under growing pressure from regulators, financiers and communities to demonstrate measurable, verifiable environmental outcomes — not just compliance with minimum closure conditions.
If eDNA data is independently audited, publicly reported, and paired with transparent rehabilitation targets, it could help close the long-standing credibility gap between rehabilitation commitments and on-ground outcomes.
If not governed carefully, it risks becoming another layer of reporting that is difficult for regulators and communities to independently verify.
Nature does not recover on the strength of good intentions or clever tools alone. It recovers when disturbance is reduced, soils are rebuilt, hydrology is stabilised, and time is allowed to do its work.
Environmental DNA can tell part of that story. It should not be allowed to replace the hard questions about whether mine rehabilitation is truly delivering ecosystems that are resilient, self-sustaining, and comparable — in function, not just appearance — to what was lost.
In that sense, the technology is not the test. Transparency is.
