Disclaimer: Copyright infringement not intended.
Context
- A recent study has highlighted a growing concern over the impact of rising demand for metals and minerals on vertebrate species.
Details
- The research, published in Current Biology on July 26, 2024, revealed that approximately 8 percent (4,642) of vertebrate species are threatened by mineral extraction activities, particularly mining and quarrying.
- Fish are especially vulnerable to these activities, facing significant risks.
Findings of the Study
Global Hotspots and Regional Threats
- The tropics have emerged as global hotspots for mineral extraction threats (MET) to vertebrates.
- Regions such as northern South America, West Africa, and the Arctic exhibit significant regional diversity at risk.
- The study emphasizes that species inhabiting freshwater environments are particularly threatened, though the impact of mineral extraction varies among different ecological groups.
Environmental Impact of Mining
- Mining is a major contributor to land use alteration and environmental harm worldwide.
- Various mineral extraction techniques, including mining and quarrying, have distinct impacts on biodiversity.
- The study explored the connections between species' habitat usage, life-history traits, and the risks posed by mineral extraction.
- The report highlights the necessity of mining for societal needs but acknowledges the environmental tensions it creates.
Comprehensive Evaluation of Biodiversity Risks
- The research represents one of the most comprehensive global evaluations of the risks to biodiversity posed by the extraction of metal minerals, fossil fuels, and construction materials.
- It focused on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine vertebrates, including amphibians, birds, fish, mammals, and reptiles, as assessed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.
Multiple Threats to Vertebrate Species
- The study identified mineral extraction as a threat to 4,642 (7.8 percent) of the 59,803 extant vertebrate species assessed by the IUCN.
- Among these, 3,775 species (81 percent) are threatened by mining and quarrying, 1,000 species (22 percent) by mining seepage, 584 species (12 percent) by oil spills, and 431 species (9 percent) by oil and gas drilling.
- Fish had the highest number of species with METs, followed by reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals.
The Broad Impact of Mineral Extraction
- The study found that mineral extraction is a driver of extinction risk across IUCN Red List categories.
- Species in the threatened categories (vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered) have higher percentages of METs compared to those listed as least concern or data deficient.
- This pattern is particularly evident in birds, where 18.4 percent of critically endangered species have METs compared to only 1.4 percent of least-concern species.
- The researchers note that high extinction risk species often possess METs, underscoring the global threat posed by mineral extraction.
Variability in Mining's Impact on Biodiversity
- The impact of mining on biodiversity can vary based on several factors, including waste management, recovery and reclamation efforts (such as tree planting and pond creation), infrastructure, and the specific materials being mined.
- For example, in Brazil's iron quadrangle region, mining poses significant risks to endemic bird species, with an average of 27 percent of their range within 5 kilometers of mining areas.
Problems associated with mining
|
Problem
|
Description
|
|
High Water Use
|
Mining operations often have high water footprints. Water is used for dust mitigation, particle removal, sieving, and separation processes, as well as in creating tailings dams. Pollution from these processes can lead to reduced access to uncontaminated freshwater for local communities, causing water stress.
|
|
Mining Pollution
|
Environmental pollution from mining often results from tailings leakages. Tailings contain radioactive, toxic, or acidic materials, including cyanide, mercury, and arsenic. Poor management, especially in artisanal mining, exacerbates this problem, leading to complex environmental and health issues.
|
|
Land Use Change
|
Mining causes significant land use changes, including deforestation and development of infrastructure such as camps, railways, and roads. This can lead to further human disturbance and ecological damage, particularly in sensitive areas like tropical rainforests.
|
|
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
|
Mining contributes to greenhouse gas emissions through land clearing and fossil fuel use. High energy usage in mining processes results in significant CO2 emissions, especially when extracting less concentrated minerals.
|
|
Air Pollution
|
Air quality is affected by unrefined materials released during mining. Toxic elements such as lead, arsenic, and cadmium become airborne, causing respiratory diseases and allergies in nearby populations.
|
|
Water Pollution
|
Mining causes metal contamination, increased sediment levels, and acid mine drainage. Pollutants from processing plants, tailing ponds, and waste-disposal areas impact water bodies, affecting aquatic life and human activities like irrigation and fishing.
|
|
Damage to Land
|
Mining operations create open pits and waste rock piles, leading to physical destruction of land. This results in the deterioration of flora and fauna and destabilization of the ground, threatening infrastructure like roads and buildings.
|
|
Loss of Biodiversity
|
Mining drastically modifies landscapes, causing habitat loss for various species. Endemic species are particularly vulnerable, facing the risk of extinction. Toxins from mining can wipe out entire populations of sensitive species.
|
|
Long-Term Ill-Effects
|
Mining-affected landscapes can take a long time to recover, if at all. Remediation efforts do not always restore biodiversity, leading to permanent loss of species and long-term ecological damage.
|
|
Global Impact on Biodiversity
|
Mining threatens thousands of vertebrate species, particularly in biodiversity hotspots. Extraction of materials for clean energy (e.g., lithium, cobalt) poses significant risks to wildlife.
|
|
Erosion and Habitat Destruction
|
Mining causes landscape erosion and destruction of endangered species' habitats. These effects can persist long after mining operations cease, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and flora and fauna death.
|
|
Water Use and Wastewater
|
High water demands for extraction, processing, and waste disposal in mining can lead to water pollution and depletion of freshwater supplies. Implementing waste-water recycling technologies can mitigate some of these effects.
|
Looking Ahead
- Overall, when considering the environmental ramifications of mining, it is important to weigh the social and environmental damages caused by extracting minerals against the benefits gained from the use of the final product.
- As consumers, we must be aware that our decisions to purchase new products containing finite mined materials are associated with high water use, land use, pollution, and the release of greenhouse gases.
- However, the mining of further resources is necessary to support the growing global population and facilitate the creation of green infrastructure and renewable energy generation.
- It is vital that governments and companies continue to innovate, creating clean mining technologies with strict environmental regulations. This will enable the mining industry to pave the way for a sustainable and hopeful future.
In conclusion, while mining remains essential for modern society, there is an urgent need to balance economic development with the preservation of biodiversity.
Balancing Economic Development and Biodiversity
Integrating Biodiversity in Industry Practices
Incorporating Biodiversity Considerations
- To effectively mainstream biodiversity, companies need to integrate biodiversity considerations into every stage of their projects.
- This includes assessing impacts during the exploration, construction, operation, and post-closure By evaluating both direct and indirect effects, companies can identify potential issues early and develop strategies to address them.
Developing Robust Metrics
- It is crucial for companies to develop and utilize robust metrics to evaluate biodiversity performance.
- While traditional metrics often focus on compliance and processes, effective biodiversity management requires metrics that measure actual performance in terms of the state of biodiversity.
- This shift ensures a better understanding of the impact on local ecosystems and improves management strategies.
Following a Hierarchy for Impact Management
A strict hierarchy for managing impacts on biodiversity should be adopted. This involves:
- Avoiding significant impacts whenever possible
- Minimizing unavoidable impacts
- Restoring affected areas
- Offsetting residual impacts
This systematic approach helps address potential negative effects in a transparent and effective manner.
Engaging with Local Communities
- Engagement with local communities and indigenous peoples is essential.
- Their involvement in decision-making processes ensures that their knowledge and concerns are incorporated, leading to more effective and culturally sensitive biodiversity management.
Collaborating with Specialized Organizations
- Companies should collaborate with organization. These collaborations provide valuable data and tools that enhance the ability to make informed decisions and implement effective biodiversity management practices.
Decoupling Economic Growth from Biodiversity Loss
- Addressing the challenge of decoupling economic growth from biodiversity loss is vital. Exploring alternative economic models, such as steady-state or degrowth approaches, can help achieve economic benefits while preserving biodiversity. These models prioritize environmental sustainability alongside economic development.
In summary, mainstreaming biodiversity involves a comprehensive approach that integrates considerations throughout all project phases, develops performance-driven metrics, follows a hierarchy of impact management, engages local communities, collaborates with specialized organizations, and explores economic models that align growth with biodiversity conservation.
Limiting Urban Expansion
- Compact urban planning offers a promising solution to limit the physical expansion of cities.
- This approach can help mitigate the ongoing loss and fragmentation of periurban habitats.
- By saving periurban croplands from urbanization, cities can benefit from local food production, which reduces the need to displace agricultural activities to remote, biodiverse regions.
The Role of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Planning
- Effective urban planning requires both top-down national land-use regulations and bottom-up planning schemes.
- National policies should enforce limits on urban expansion, while regional and local plans must consider specific contexts.
- Bottom-up approaches allow stakeholders to address housing needs while also focusing on ecosystem restoration.
The Potential of Product Labeling
- Labeling products based on their full biodiversity footprint along international trade routes can help reduce the environmental impacts of consumption.
- Coupled with governmental control over advertisements and public media campaigns, such labeling could promote more biodiversity-friendly consumption.
The Need for New Economic Paradigms
- To transition to a biodiversity-friendly pathway, it is essential to reconsider the endorsement of economic growth in future assessments by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).
- The IPBES Global Assessment Report has already acknowledged the need to move away from the current growth paradigm.
Role of CBD and IPBES in Policy Innovation
- CBD and IPBES could serve as laboratories for designing and testing alternative policies.
- Enhanced cooperation between countries, the private sector, and civil society is crucial for this process.
- Participatory scenario development can help overcome societal addiction to growth by exploring policy options that align with a positive vision for the future.
Proposing SSP0 for Biodiversity and Economic Growth
- Currently, biodiversity scenarios under IPBES use shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) that assume positive economic growth.
- To better understand how to achieve ambitious biodiversity targets, a new SSP, termed SSP0, should be added.
- This scenario would explore pathways involving low, zero, or even negative growth while aiming for high levels of biodiversity conservation and well-being.
Narrative for SSP0
- SSP0 envisions a global economy that shrinks in material and energetic terms, focusing on redistribution of wealth and enhanced prosperity.
- This transition would involve a shift away from GDP-centric growth toward sustainable well-being indicators.
- Investment would prioritize technology for introspection rather than production, and the demographic transition would accelerate through investments in education and health.
Scenario Development and Metrics
- Introducing SSP0 could expand the range of policy options and help shift political and economic priorities.
- Using an integrated set of metrics—comprising economic measures, social indicators, biophysical indicators, and subjective well-being measures—would provide a clearer picture of the relationship between economic activity, social well-being, and biodiversity.
Examining Alternative Growth Pathways
- The examination of alternative growth pathways—such as those proposed in SSP0—could reveal how biodiversity and well-being targets can be met.
- This approach contrasts with current SSPs, which focus on achieving biodiversity goals within positive economic growth scenarios. By exploring these alternatives, policies can be designed to better balance economic growth with biodiversity conservation.
Conclusion
- The connection between economic growth and biodiversity loss highlights the need for significant transformations in our economic system. While absolute decoupling remains theoretical, exploring low, zero, or negative growth scenarios offers a practical path forward.
- The introduction of SSP0 within IPBES could broaden policy options and support the development of new targets and indicators, facilitating a more balanced approach to biodiversity conservation and social well-being.
|
PRACTICE QUESTION
Q: There is an urgent need to balance economic development with the preservation of biodiversity. Discuss the strategies in achieving this balance, considering the social, economic, and environmental aspects.
|
SOURCE: DOWN TO EARTH
