The expansion of exploration and mining activities into hitherto unexplored, pristine environments continues to place pressure on the world’s unique and extraordinary biodiversity, particularly with the ever-increasing demand for mineral resources.

Conflicts of interest can be found all over the world. One example is South Africa’s Limpopo Province, where ‘islands’ of unique plants are located directly above high concentrations of platinum group metals; both a result of the parent rock below.

Similarly, Mount Nimba on the border of Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire, and Liberia in West Africa, is recognised as the most important site in the Guinea forests due to the presence of the highest concentration of Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites (where species are in imminent danger of disappearing), and the fact that it is home to six critically-endangered species. However, the area is also a prospective region for iron-ore mining, which is being planned along the ridge of Mount Nimba.

Historically, such conflicting interests in land use have involved conservation, non-government organisations (NGOs) adopting a confrontational approach to corporate engagement in an attempt to force companies to place greater emphasis on environmental and social issues. However, over the past decade these two, apparently opposing, sectors have been navigating an alternative approach, involving partnerships between conservation NGOs and mining companies.

Drivers of changing perspectives

This shift in perspective, whereby the mining sector and conservation NGOs have come to recognise potentially mutual benefits in forming cross-sectoral partnerships, has been motivated by various initiatives.

Recent research by Jill Shankleman at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC has found that over the past decade, the major OECD-based oil and mining companies – along with multilateral and bilateral development agencies, OECD donors and international advocacy NGOs – have been applying a new model for resource extraction.

This has been built around the application of global guidelines for mitigating negative local environmental and social impacts, spending on community projects, and addressing the risks of corruption and the mismanagement of government revenues from oil and mining through transparency and the public disclosure of revenue flows.

Development of this new model was driven by operational problems in many developing countries in which companies had made large investments, pressure from NGOs campaigning about the damaging effects of the extractive industry in countries with poor governance and weak institutions, and a growing public (as shareholders and other stakeholders) and business interest in corporate social responsibility.

All of these initiatives have individually, and collectively, contributed towards a stronger focus on the environmental and social issues associated with mining. Although the mining and environment/conservation sectors are clearly motivated by very different drivers, recent collaborations suggest that working together may lead to innovative solutions to complex problems. This has been demonstrated specifically in relation to avoiding and managing risks to biodiversity.

The spatial identification of biodiversity risks is supported by the Integrated Biodiversity and Assessment Tool (IBAT), which was developed through a partnership of conservation NGOs, including BirdLife International, Conservation International, IUCN and UNEP WCMC. IBAT is a global online, interactive tool that provides easy access to site-scale biodiversity priorities to inform decision-making around new and existing operations.

Motivation

Partnerships offer numerous benefits to the parties involved. From the mining company’s perspective, such a partnership could: avoid duplication of effort; ensure alignment with global trends and international best practice; build shareholder confidence via the credibility of associating with an NGO ‘brand’; facilitate access to land and resources;  provide technical support; offer the public relations benefits of environmental achievements; ensure information sharing between the two sectors; and support conservation planning and biodiversity research, education and training.

From the conservation NGO’s perspective, these partnerships are attractive as a means to ensuring specific biodiversity conservation objectives are accomplished, and that positive biodiversity conservation outcomes are enhanced in overlapping geographic areas of interest. Specifically, such partnerships have the potential to influence company policy, initiating change across a firm’s global operations.

Furthermore, a strong commitment to biodiversity by a particular company can create change across an entire consumer base and leverage government support for conservation efforts in countries characterised by high mineral wealth, as well as providing long-term funding for conservation projects.

Collaboration between mining experts and biodiversity experts, and the use of various tools that have been developed, can contribute towards biodiversity risk avoidance and risk management through the provision of current scientific knowledge and expertise. Conservation NGOs can also provide independent objectivity by being an ‘honest broker’ for the environment, or play a ‘facilitator’ role between civil society, governments, communities, other NGOs and mining companies.

Factors for success

Conservation International is one NGO that has been engaged with the mining sector for the past ten years in order to minimise its impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, and maximise opportunities for firms to help protect biodiversity. The organisation has collaborated with at least 11 mining companies during this period, fostering long-term partnerships with a number of them.

Collaboration has usually involved corporate-level engagement in addition to site-specific activities in 14 countries. Conservation International has also been involved in the development of tools and initiatives to help the extractive industries address biodiversity and broader conservation issues.

A recent investigation of four successful partnerships between mining companies and conservation NGOs in Africa highlighted how collaboration and innovative thinking can contribute to significant conservation outcomes without obstructing mineral extraction processes.

The research found that partnerships:

n    Contributed towards a broader conservation         planning initiative in the biodiversity hotspot;

• Involved the mining company contributing funds towards conservation initiatives and the partnership (not necessarily in the early stages);
• In some instances involved the NGO raising additional funding to accomplish conservation outcomes, and helping to leverage additional government and other funding for conservation efforts beyond the partnership;
• Included broad collaboration with various stakeholders, including additional NGOs (aside from the conservation NGO in partnership with the mining company), local and national government representatives, local community representatives and environmental consultants;
• Involved a common vision between the mining company and the conservation NGO, with clear conservation objectives;
• Required engaging mine site and senior leadership/corporate representatives of the mining company;
• Enabled access to specialist biodiversity expertise and contributed towards the advancement of scientific knowledge in the country in question, in addition to setting new benchmarks for scientific studies accompanying developments;
  
• Involved rigorous scientific methodology to support and refine the business case for biodiversity conservation;
  
• Helped the mining company meet a specific regulatory requirement;
• Involved the establishment of a relationship of mutual trust and respect;
• Required the mining company to implement recommendations;
•  Involved publicly communicating the scientific results and/or conservation outcomes;
• Included extensive stakeholder negotiations and ensuring the value of biodiversity to local communities was taken into consideration;
• Extended over a long timeframe of sometimes up to nine years;
• Involved the development of a formal agreement, including clearly defined roles and responsibilities of each party, financial contributions, meetings, communication protocols, reporting requirements, deliverables and timeframes, and addressed issues around confidentiality, freedom to comment and public release of information.

Key steps to successful partnership

In addition, partners can take a number of steps to ensure success. Both parties need to assess the risks associated with a potential partnership and develop criteria to guide any decisions on which organisation to partner. This may require research, and involve a form of due diligence to avoid the reputational risks associated with partnering poor performers.

Ideally, the company’s senior leadership (for example, the chief executive or any other key decision makers) need to be engaged, as well as an employee who is proficient with eco issues, such as an environmental policy advisor or head of corporate citizenship. It is important to ensure this point of contact between the partners is fully engaged and can disseminate information to other staff. It is also crucial that any relationship between industry and NGOs is built on mutual trust and respect. Both parties need to have a full understanding of the business of the other.

Formal agreements

It is important to define measurable objectives for the partnership in the early stages to maximise the impact of the work involved. This may be achieved through a formal agreement. However, with the differing aims of industry and conservation NGOs, defining the purpose and objectives of the partnership may require a skilled facilitator.

Partnerships can involve formal legal agreements that commit both parties to specified deliverables or comprise non legally-binding agreements, characterised by a memorandum of understanding.Whatever the format of the agreement, several issues must be covered, including confidentiality of information, communication protocol, roles and responsibilities, geographic scope of collaboration (site-specific/regional/global), term and objectives.

Availability of capital is another key consideration. Although the partnership might not involve a direct exchange of funds between the two parties, resources are still required. In addition to money, this could include the time and energy of key personnel to participate in meetings and phone calls.

It should be noted that real change is not easy to effect in the short term. Partnership agreements would generally need to extend over a number of years, and on a global scale, to ensure all of the mining company’s prospecting and mining sites take biodiversity considerations into account during project planning and decision-making.

Communication

Communication between the two parties, as well as with other stakeholders, are also critical to success.Other stakeholders who need to be engaged should be identified early on in the partnership process and may include: government (local, national, and home country government of companies involved); local and international civil society; international financial institutions; multilateral organisations such as the World Bank or regional development banks; and academic institutions.

Funds should be set aside to ensure outcomes are publicly communicated since this has multiple benefits for all parties involved in the initiative.

Collaborative initiatives

• The Benchmarks Foundation developed principles for global corporate responsibility in 1999
• The IUCN-ICMM Dialogue, launched in 2002 at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, and ICMM’s Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity aim to improve the mining industry’s performance on biodiversity conservation
• The Global Reporting Initiative encourages private-sector companies to report on environ-mental and social performance in terms of a set of agreed environmental indicators. A mining sector supplement also exists
• The Equator Principles oblige signatory lending institutions to enforce their clients to comply with international environmental and social standards
• The Responsible Jewellery Council certification process is the first such standard to apply to the diamond and gold-beneficiation pipeline, and is expected to establish a new benchmark for externally verified performance in this industry
• The Kimberley Certification Process was set up to counter the trade in illegal rough diamonds
  
• The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance is a multi-sector effort, launched in Vancouver in 2006, to establish a voluntary system to verify compliance with environmental, human rights and social standards for mines
• Corporate social responsibility guidelines have also been incorporated specifically into the exploration sector through initiatives such as that of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, e3 Plus. This was launched in March 2009 to help exploration companies improve their social, environmental, and health and safety performance, and to integrate these three aspects into all of their exploration programmes
• The Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative requires public disclosure of all revenues collected from natural resource companies for the extraction of oil, gas and minerals, and includes an external verification process
  

 

 

 

 

 

Receive free Environmental News directly to your inbox.

Your email address:

© Aspermont UK 2012 , all rights reserved.