Mining and heritage: reconciling interests

According to the IFC guidance on Biodiversity (PS6, 2012), mining in heritage areas is only admissible:

in the absence of viable alternatives,
if adverse impacts are not measurable, AND
If adverse impacts do not lead to net reductions in critical values for which heritage is designated.

However, as the first part of this insight series addresses, best practices are not always followed when mining activities overlap with heritage. This second part of the insight series looks beyond the industry-level actions available to downstream buyers and explores how upstream supply chain actors can manage risks to heritage on the ground. Below are some risk identification and management approaches that mining companies can employ, depending on a project’s context and the phase of its mining life cycle.

Identifying and assessing risks to heritage

Collecting strong, quantitative baseline data is a valuable starting point for scoping potential risks and confirming (through scientific studies) that adverse impacts can be mitigated and reversed using realistic measures. From this, detailed biodiversity and heritage management plans can be developed, which are key components of the broader Environmental Social Management Plans (or ‘ESMPs’).

However, the nuances of risks are sometimes best understood by stakeholders themselves, such as the interconnection between adverse environmental impacts and human rights risks, as highlighted in the OECD Handbook on Environmental Due Diligence in Mineral Supply Chains. Therefore, engagement with communities and wider civil society can help to identify critical heritage values and determine risks associated with site development. A high-quality consultation can ease local concerns and help to establish a social license so that projects earn free, prior, and informed consent from affected and land-connected stakeholders. Three key success factors for stakeholder consultation include:

Critically assess the cross-section of participants and each group’s political representation, institutional power, and legislative influence. Non-involvement, neutrality, and tolerance can disguise systemic obstacles (such as minority ethnic, religious, or cultural status) that restrict meaningful participation in consultations and the ability to object to project proposals.
Remove barriers to engagement wherever possible by using regular and accessible forms of consultation (e.g. convenient time and locations, physical accessibility, group-specific safe spaces, etc.). This will help to ensure that knowledge relating to heritage risks can be fully shared and then reflected in a project’s dynamic design and operation.
Communicate an accessible grievance mechanism to aid data-gathering efforts. Ideally, the channels of the grievance mechanism include anonymised options that are operated by an independent third party. Empowering the public to speak up on an ongoing basis allows companies, their employees, civil society, and members of the public to flag risks before they become adverse impacts.

Preventing risks to heritage once identified

After assessing a project, efforts to address threats to heritage should be prioritised according to a risk mitigation hierarchy. Before impacts are mitigated or (as a last resort) remediated, they should first be prevented wherever possible. Some approaches include:

Employ innovative technology solutions that enable projects to work around ‘tangible heritage’, such as fixed, actively used cultural sites or the biotic (living organisms) and abiotic (air, soil and water) components of a site’s wider ecosystem. These sensitive locations, which are most exposed to physical and aesthetic impacts at the surface, can avoid disturbance through precise excavation methods, underground facilities and subterranean material transportation infrastructure.
Use 3-D surface mapping and geological surveying to detect ‘non-visible’ tangible heritage, hidden cultural heritage (including archaeological sites and burial grounds), and ‘eco-systemically’ important features (e.g., aquifers, and subterranean waterways) that remain unidentified until the topsoil of a site is disturbed.
Partner with local communities and approved heritage stewardship experts to temporarily remove and preserve tangible heritage when projects are unable to find workarounds. This can display active involvement in and respect for local culture, helping to consolidate a project’s social license to operate. It is important that the removal of heritage, when culturally sensitive, receives consent from relevant stakeholders and is undertaken in partnership with heritage stewardship experts approved by local communities.
Employ earth observation tools to help identify potential risks to ‘intangible heritage’, such as land-connected culture and customs. These forms of heritage can be more nuanced and harder to monitor and are at risk of dilution due to inward migration and land-use changes resulting from the arrival or growth of the mining sector or community disintegration caused by new economic pressures. Therefore, monitoring population growth and demographic changes can proactively identify opportunities for projects to support or establish local initiatives that protect and promote intangible heritage, where appropriate.
Invest in capability-building opportunities that empower locals by leveraging and developing relevant skillsets that help to involve traditional communities that would otherwise be excluded from direct employment in the sector. Social enterprise programmes can also provide mutual benefits to a project through local procurement and services, such as agricultural programmes supplying onsite catering services in remote areas or formalised engagement with conflict-free or low-risk forms of artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM).

Mitigating risks to heritage when unpreventable

The ability to mitigate risks must be a priority consideration when determining project feasibility; risk mitigation strategies should ultimately achieve a net gain in the value for which heritage was designated. However, according to the OECD (2023), some impacts are less well understood, evolving or unknown, or are harder to assess and, therefore, may not all be captured by risk assessments before their emergence. Therefore, risks that are not prevented from which adverse impacts materialise must also be identified on an ongoing basis:

Prepare early and thoroughly for mine closure to minimise long-term impacts of disruptive practices (such as deforestation, dredging and the controversial practice of deep-sea mining). Although mining projects can intrinsically cause short- and mid-term disruption to heritage, creating the conditions required for the full recovery of heritage sites begins during mine exploration and development and is implemented whilst operational and post-closure. Complete restoration that minimises the transformative impact of mining on the land should be a minimum condition for the pursuit and approval of mining development.
Configure a project’s operational footprint to optimise recovery. This can involve maintaining sections of vegetation and seasonally pausing production to minimise disruption to local wildlife and protect their interconnected alimentary, reproductive and migratory patterns. As well as encouraging regrowth and successful reclamation, deliberate planning can safeguard the faunae on which other natural (e.g. habitat creation and regulation) and cultural (e.g. pastoral transhumance or nomadic herding by indigenous peoples) forms of heritage rely. Similarly, when actively-used, cultural heritage is linked to a specific ecosystem and relocation is inappropriate (e.g. hunting and fishing grounds or sacred natural features), access restrictions should be temporary and maintain sites’ original form so as not to impair communities’ ability to enjoy or benefit from their environment (OECD, 2023).
Control ‘internal’ contextual factors that increase the likelihood and severity of impacts when risks to heritage are realised (OECD, 2023). Some factors outlined are inherent to operating in heritage areas, such as proximity to heritage sites, high biodiversity densities and the vulnerability of local ecosystems and surrounding communities. However, other factors, such as the company’s size, ownership and organisation structure, operational scale and level of formalisation, are potentially within a company’s control and impact the extent, scope and irremediable character of adverse impacts caused. For example, the larger the scale of operations, the higher the water use intensity, the higher the number of species impacted within that watershed and the lower degree to which full rehabilitation might be possible in the long term.
Control ‘external’ contextual factors to which a company contributes (OECD, 2023). Although companies may not have complete control or leverage of external influences, informed decisions to minimise these contributions will help to avoid exacerbating adverse impacts unnecessarily. For example, the prevalence of extreme events (such a droughts, earthquakes or heavy rainfall) should inform the location (e.g. downwind and downstream) and design (e.g. infrastructure such as road networks or TSFs) of a project. Equally, the effect of different mining methods and processes (e.g. underground or surface, use of explosives or digging) on the impacts of geological and meteorological phenomena should be considered, with impacts weighed up according to a risk mitigation hierarchy.

Remediating impacts of risks to heritage when ‘realised’

In cases where the ambition of no net loss to heritage values becomes unattainable, companies should consider temporarily ceasing damaging practices. Since disengagement is an undesirable developmental outcome for local communities and economies, companies should only close facilities if issues cannot be resolved within a reasonable timeframe. Determining acceptable time limits is a subjective decision at the discretion of the company and stakeholders and should be linked to the urgency and severity of impacts.

Use remediation that is right for the context if risks are not prevented or their impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated. For some tangible natural heritage, compensation for stakeholders and restoration might be a priority, with offsets as a last resort in instances of irreversible damage. However, since heritage holds ‘unique’ and ‘irreplaceable’ value, offsetting and compensation are commonly unsuitable forms of remediation. For some cultural heritage, for example, which relies on more intangible factors (e.g. legacy, memories, beliefs, practices) to sustain its value, restoration may be an inadequate measure to address adverse impacts.
Employ sensitive restoration techniques. Account for geological and ecological contextual factors, that create the right conditions for forms of naturally regenerative heritage to regenerate. For example, toxic wet tailings produced by underground mines and dammed at the surface can be spread and dried out to backfill exhausted sections. Similarly, in open-pit mining, the original topsoil (or overburden) can be set aside and used to landscape excavated and now exposed sections of a concession; any sediment used to replace discarded or sold topsoil should be compatible with the original habitat to optimise recovery. Equally, planting native vegetation (possible through prior seed collection) in a ‘nucleation’ pattern can accelerate the reconnection of pockets of nature more organically and effectively than fast-growing but monocultural, plantation-style forestry. Efforts to successfully restore excavated areas should, alongside mitigation efforts, begin whilst operations remain active and can support future mine development applications in sensitive areas as proof of practice.
Extend minimal stewardship periods where necessary to ensure and oversee the full recovery of unique values for which heritage was designated. Typically, mining companies are legally responsible for the restoration of mine sites for a minimum of two years following mine closure. However, depending on the environmental and social demands of the local area and the ultimate severity of the impacts caused, companies should commit to longer than minimum contractual obligations.

Where to start?

To maintain high Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards throughout a mine’s lifecycle, from project planning through mine closure and post-closure activities, it is crucial to have adequate and secure financial securities that cover measures for protecting heritage (OECD, 2023). It should account for the resources required to finance feasibility and ongoing risk assessments, corresponding solutions, and monitoring, quantifying, and disclosing management outcomes.

Budgeting for these activities should begin as early as possible in the mine life cycle, regardless of the phase that a project has reached. Planning and coordinating these efforts require hiring or training enough personnel with sufficient expertise to maintain up-to-date biodiversity and heritage management plans. By adapting dynamically to the evolving risk landscape and following risk management actions through to completion, companies can meet the needs of different stakeholder groups more effectively, helping mining projects and heritage coexist more harmoniously.