You are on page 1of 11

Mainstreaming biodiversity protection in the

mining sector

Per Strömberg, PhD


Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

Claudia Ituarte-Lima, PhD


SwedBio/ Stockholm Resilience Centre
Governance challenge
Governance of mining
challenge of mining

Ensure that
Ensure that positive
positive effects
effects outweigh
(for whom) outweigh
negative negative effects (for whom)
effects

’Clean up cost
> mineral
value’

’Social cost >


extracted
value’
’EIA often limited to the project site/active time’
’EIA often addresses only the project site / until closure’

Climate
resilience
(Limpopo, South
Africa)

Source: Ituarte &


Stromberg (2018)
Discussion 1 in bee-hives
Discussion in bee-hives
’EIA is often limited to the project site/active time’

1. Which system boundary is used in EIA and EMP in your country


• Project site or down stream / mine closure or beyond?

2. Obstacles for assessing beyond site/active time?


• Shortcomings in competence, resources, incentives, methods?)
The Ecosystem Services – Human Rights Framework

Mining

Environmental Human well- Affects Human


change being change Rights
Uncertainty and risk
Uncertainty and risk

Large tailings dams


• Must last into perpetuity
• Relatively high failure rate
• Catastrophic release: long term socio-environmental damage,
significant costs
Four criteria to avoid common governance mistakes
Four criteria to help to avoid common governance challenges

Criteria 1: is the mining venture profitable?


• Deloitte 2018: Short sightedness of investors

Criteria 2: are societal benefits of the project larger than societal costs?

Criteria 3: does the project mean the most beneficial use of society´s
resources?
• Deloitte 2018: Water access a substantial business risk

Criteria 4: does the revenues from the project reach the nation’s people?

HR helps us to keep on the right track!


Principles
Principlesfor
formainstreaming biodiversity
mainstreaming biodiversity in
in mining
mining
Mitigation Hierarchy

1. Avoid
2. Minimise –duration, intensity,
significance and/or extent
3. Restore
4. Offset

Criteria:
a. Species diversity
b. Ecosystem functions
c. Ecosystem services/
human wellbeing

Mitigation hierarchy already in


EIA/EMP
Discussion in bee-hives
Questions for discussion

• Is the mitigation hierarchy a basis for EMP in your country?

• Which steps in mitigation hierarchy are used in your country?

1. Avoid the environmental impact:


• Are there any cases of rejection of a mining licence due to environmental
concerns?
2. Minimise (duration, intensity, significance and/or extent of mine)
3. Restore
4. Offset

• Lessons learned from the country in this regard?


Slutkommentar Concluding
om Ekosystemtjänster
remarks och
gruvnäring

These tools and principles contribute to levelling the


playing field

• Facilitates informed decisions between different


resource uses
• Consistent with a whole-of-government approach
• Supports/supported by Human Rights
• Transparent
Thank you for your attention!

per.stromberg@swedishepa.se
claudia.Ituarte@su.se

swed.bio/reports

You might also like