Search

Africa’s ‘Mining Boom’ Threatens More Than a Third of Its Great Apes

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

06 Apr, 2024

This post was originally published on Eco Watch

More than a third of Africa’s great apes are being put at much greater risk from global mining activities than scientists had previously believed, according to a new study led by the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv).

The green energy transition’s increasing demand for critical minerals like copper, nickel, cobalt and lithium has led to a mining surge in Africa, a press release from iDiv said. This causes more deforestation in tropical rainforests — the habitat of great apes and many other species.

Chimpanzee habitat cleared for a railway to transport iron ore to a port in Guinea. Genevieve Campbell / iDiv

“Africa is experiencing an unprecedented mining boom threatening wildlife populations and whole ecosystems. Mining activities are growing in intensity and scale, and with increasing exploration and production in previously unexploited areas,” the study said. “Africa contains around 30% of the world’s mineral resources, yet less than 5% of the global mineral exploitation has occurred in Africa, highlighting the enormous potential for growth in this sector. Substantial production increases in the renewable energy sector are expected to cause a boom in mineral exploitation.”

As much as a third of the great ape population in Africa — almost 180,000 gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos — could be threatened by mining, the study said.

The researchers pointed out that mining’s real impact on great apes and biodiversity in general could be even higher, since there is no requirement that mining companies make biodiversity data available to the public, the press release said.

For the study, the research team used data on mining sites in 17 countries in Africa. The team defined 6.21-mile buffer zones to measure direct impacts like noise and light pollution and habitat destruction. They also defined 31.07-mile buffer zones to look at indirect impacts associated with increased human activity, such as roads and infrastructure built to access previously remote areas. This new development puts increased pressure on great apes from habitat loss, hunting and a greater risk of disease transmission.

The team used the African great ape density distribution data to investigate how many apes could be negatively impacted and made maps of areas where high ape densities overlapped with frequent mining.

“Currently, studies on other species suggest that mining harms apes through pollution, habitat loss, increased hunting pressure, and disease, but this is an incomplete picture,” said Dr. Jessica Junker, lead author of the study, researcher for Re:wild and a postdoctoral researcher at Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg’s Institute of Biology and iDiv, in the press release. “The lack of data sharing by mining projects hampers our scientific understanding of its true impact on great apes and their habitat.” 

The largest overlaps of mining sites and areas with high ape density in both buffer zones were in the West African countries of Sierra Leone, Mali, Guinea and Liberia. The biggest overlap of chimpanzee density and mining was in Guinea, where as much as 83 percent of the ape population — more than 23,000 chimpanzees — could be impacted by mining activities either directly or indirectly.

Overall, areas with relatively high mining and ape densities were not protected.

The study, “Threat of mining to African great apes,” was published in the journal Science Advances.

The research team also looked at the intersection of mining areas with “Critical Habitat,” which consist of regions that are essential because of their unique biodiversity apart from apes. The team discovered a 20 percent overlap between these. Designation of critical habitat necessitates strict environmental regulations, particularly for those mining projects that are seeking funding from the International Finance Corporation — part of the World Bank — and other entities that adhere to similar standards and are looking to operate inside these zones. Earlier efforts to map Africa’s critical habitat have failed to include major areas of ape habitat that could qualify under global benchmarks.

Direct and indirect impacts of mining on great apes in Africa. Gabriele Rada / iDiv

“Companies operating in these areas should have adequate mitigation and compensation schemes in place to minimize their impact, which seems unlikely, given that most companies lack robust species baseline data that are required to inform these actions,” said Dr. Tenekwetche Sop, who manages Senckenberg Museum of Natural History’s IUCN SSC A.P.E.S. database — a repository of population data on all great apes — in the press release. “Encouraging these companies to share their invaluable ape survey data with our database serves as a pivotal step towards transparency in their operations. Only through such collaborative efforts can we comprehensively gauge the true extent of mining activities’ effects on great apes and their habitats.”

Although these impacts are hard to quantify, they frequently extend far beyond a mining project’s boundaries, and mining companies rarely consider or take steps to mitigate the risks. Furthermore, offset or compensation is based on approximate impacts, which researchers say are often underestimated and inaccurate. And while offset programs generally last only the length of the mining project, most impacts from mining on great apes are not temporary.

“Mining companies need to focus on avoiding their impacts on great apes as much as possible and use offsetting as a last resort as there is currently no example of a great ape offset that has been successful,” explained Dr. Genevieve Campbell, senior researcher at Re:wild and head of the IUCN SSC PSG SGA/SSA ARRC Task Force, in the press release. “Avoidance needs to take place already during the exploration phase, but unfortunately, this phase is poorly regulated and ‘baseline data’ are collected by companies after many years of exploration and habitat destruction have taken place. These data then do not accurately reflect the original state of the great ape populations in the area before mining impacts.’’

Junker emphasized that the best way to protect great apes and biodiversity is to let them be.

“A shift away from fossil fuels is good for the climate but must be done in a way that does not jeopardize biodiversity. In its current iteration it may even be going against the very environmental goals we’re aiming for,” Junker said. “Companies, lenders and nations need to recognize that it may sometimes be of greater value to leave some regions untouched to mitigate climate change and help prevent future epidemics.”

The post Africa’s ‘Mining Boom’ Threatens More Than a Third of Its Great Apes appeared first on EcoWatch.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

In June, I had the privilege of attending the 2025 E-Waste World, Battery Recycling, Metal Recycling, and ITAD & Circular Electronics Conference & Expo events in Frankfurt, Germany.

Speaking in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track on a panel with global Circular Economy leaders from Foxway Group, ERI and HP, we explored the evolving role of IT asset disposition (ITAD) and opportunities in the circular electronics economy.

The event’s focus on advancing circular economy goals and reducing environmental impact delivered a series of insights and learnings. From this assembly of international expertise across 75+ countries, here are some points from the presentations that stood out for me:

1. Environmental impact of the digital economy

Digitalisation has a heavy material footprint in the production phase, and lifecycle thinking needs to guide every product decision. Consider that 81% of the energy a laptop uses in its lifetime is consumed during manufacture (1 tonne in manufacture is equal to 10,000 tonnes of CO2) and laptops are typically refreshed or replaced by companies every 3–4 years.

From 2018 to 2023, the average number of devices and connections per capita in the world increased by 50% (2.4 to 3.6). In North America (8.2 to 13.4) and Western Europe (5.6 to 9.4), this almost doubled. In 1960, only 10 periodic table elements were used to make phones. In 1990, 27 elements were used and now over 60 elements are used to build the smartphones that we have become so reliant on.

A key challenge is that low-carbon and digital technologies largely compete for the same minerals. Material resource extraction could increase 60% between 2020 and 2060, while demand for lithium, cobalt and graphite is expected to rise by 500% until 2050.

High growth in ICT demand and Internet requires more attention to the environmental footprint of the digital economy. Energy consumption of data centres is expected to more than double by 2026. The electronics industry accounts for over 4% of global GHG — and digitalisation-related waste is growing, with skewed impacts on developing countries.

E-waste is rising five times faster than recycling — 1 tonne of e-waste has a carbon footprint of 2 tonnes. Today’s solution? ‘Bury it or burn it.’ In terms of spent emissions, waste and the costs associated with end-of-life liabilities, PCBAs (printed circuit board assembly) cost us enormously — they generally achieve 3–5% recyclability (75% of CO2 in PCBAs is from components).

2. Regulating circularity in electronics

There is good momentum across jurisdictions in right-to-repair, design and labelling regulations; recycling targets; and voluntary frameworks on circularity and eco-design.

The EU is at the forefront. EU legislation is lifting the ICT aftermarket, providing new opportunities for IT asset disposition (ITAD) businesses. To get a sense, the global market for electronics recycling is estimated to grow from $37 billion to $108 billion (2022–2030). The value of refurbished electronics is estimated to increase from $85.9 billion to $262.2 billion (2022–2032). Strikingly, 40% of companies do not have a formal ITAD strategy in place.

Significantly, the EU is rethinking its Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) management targets, aligned with upcoming circularity and WEEE legislation, as part of efforts to foster the circular economy. A more robust and realistic circularity-driven approach to setting collection targets would better reflect various factors including long lifespans of electronic products and market fluctuations.

Australia and New Zealand lag the EU’s comprehensive e-waste mandated frameworks. The lack of a systematic approach results in environmental degradation and missed positioning opportunities for businesses in the circular economy. While Australia’s Senate inquiry into waste reduction and recycling recommended legislating a full circular economy framework — including for imported and local product design, financial incentives and regulatory enforcement, New Zealand remains the only OECD country without a national scheme to manage e-waste.

3. Extending product lifecycles

Along with data security and digital tools, reuse was a key theme in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track of the conference. The sustainable tech company that I lead, Greenbox, recognises that reuse is the simplest circular strategy. Devices that are still functional undergo refurbishment and are reintroduced into the market, reducing new production need and conserving valuable resources.

Conference presenters highlighted how repair over replacement is being legislated as a right in jurisdictions around the world. Resources are saved, costs are lowered, product life is extended, and people and organisations are empowered to support a greener future. It was pointed out that just 43% of countries have recycling policies, 17% of global waste is formally recycled, and less than 1% of global e-waste is formally repaired and reused.

Right to repair is a rising wave in the circular economy, and legislation is one way that civil society is pushing back on programmed obsolescence. Its global momentum continues at different speeds for different product categories — from the recent EU mandates to multiple US state bills (and some laws) through to repair and reuse steps in India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Commission has done a scoping study to identify product groups under the Ecodesign framework that would be most relevant for implementing an EU-wide product reparability scoring system.

Attending this event with the entire electronic waste recycling supply chain — from peers and partners to suppliers and customers — underscored the importance of sharing best practices to address the environmental challenges that increased hardware proliferation and complex related issues are having on the world.

Ross Thompson is Group CEO of sustainability, data management and technology asset lifecycle management market leader Greenbox. With facilities in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, Greenbox Group provides customers all over the world a carbon-neutral supply chain for IT equipment to reduce their carbon footprint by actively managing their environmental, social and governance obligations.

Image credit: iStock.com/Mustafa Ovec

0 Comments