Implementing biodiversity or environmental offsets for a project when vegetation is removed has become expected practise, driven by global policy goals for ‘No Net Loss'.

Above these now standard expectations, companies can introduce processes to return a ‘Net Positive Impact (NPI)' on biodiversity, which involves an additional component when compared to the No Net Loss outcome. NPI describes when the impacts on biodiversity (i.e. the variety of ecosystems and living things) caused by the project are outweighed by the actions taken to avoid and reduce such impacts, rehabilitate affected species/landscapes, and offset any residual impacts. The NPI target is encouraged by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which recognises both the need for economic growth and development from activities such as mining and infrastructure, and concerns with biodiversity loss globally.

The NPI approach involves implementing a mitigation framework for systematically reducing biodiversity impacts for a project, commencing at the planning stage with good baseline ecological studies, and continuing through construction, operations, and rehabilitation. To undertake the project activities, actions must first aim to avoid the impacts, minimise the impacts, rehabilitate and restore affected species, and then offset the residual impacts. Importantly, implementing the hierarchy must outweigh the impacts on those affected ecosystems and living things.

Biodiversity loss from a single project may not appear to have a measurable impact at an initial glance. However, when combined with other projects completed locally, regionally, or globally, and the delays in habitat restoration; the impact can be significant in the long-term. Impacts on biodiversity could include reduced habitat quality, isolating populations, and reduced resilience of species at a community level. In severe cases, it may be so threatening a process leading to the extinction of a species.

According to the IUCN[1], there are over 20, 000 species known to be threatened with extinction; specifically, 25% of mammals and 12.5% of birds face a high risk of extinction in the near future. Without intervention, these extinction rates are expected to take a leap to more than ten times the current rate over the next 50 years. Species extinction is mainly threatened by habitat removal and degradation. Although agriculture is the major contributor to land clearing, taking up 51% of the Australian landscape[2], mining - and its target resource locational requirements- is potentially contributing to habitat decline.

In the concept of ‘Planetary Boundaries' introduced by Rockström and his global team from the Resilience Alliance (2009), biodiversity loss is recognised as one of the nine anthropogenic pressures on the Earth - along with climate change, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone, biogeochemical nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, global freshwater use, land system change, and novel entities. Each of these pressures on the earth has a ‘boundary' or tipping point, below which, humanity can operate safely. When one or more planetary boundaries reaches their tipping point, there may be a deleterious or catastrophic change to the earth system due to the risk of crossing the boundary threshold.  The 2022 report for planetary boundaries identified the biodiversity planetary boundary to be in the high-risk zone past the tipping point, beyond the safe operating space, and requiring redress.

Similar to the planetary boundary of ‘land-system change', alterations to local and regional biodiversity can have pervasive effects on the broader earth system functioning. Processes that cause significant change to the climate and ocean acidity have the ability to increase the vulnerability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, thus reducing the safe boundary levels for those processes. Biodiversity loss is considered one of the main factors behind the reduced capacity of ecosystems to provide services such as water purification, pest control and climate regulation[3].

Implementing the NPI biodiversity approach in planning or execution of mining projects should be an important factor in this decade of ecosystem restoration. As the benefits of this approach become known, the number of resource companies and corporates from diverse industries opting for Net Positive Impact on biodiversity strategies increases globally. Solutions can lead to other positive ESG outcomes and may not necessarily have an additional financial cost. They can include;

• Creating a positive reputation with landholders, neighbours, local communities, and regulators,
• Improving other local environmental management outcomes such as water quality and soil management,
• Delivering mine rehabilitation with ecological outcomes for threatened species, including improved connectivity and species recolonisation,
• Restoring habitats, including critical habitat for species connected to the project area, but not directly impacted by the project, and
• Restoring an area larger than the total direct footprint.

Solutions to this global issue assist in delivering on biodiversity requirements to gain project finance and can attract investors by responding to IFC performance standards PS6. Improved processes that follow a NPI approach can also help deliver on corporate sustainability reporting against the Sustainability Development Goals (SDG 15).

RPMGlobal has the experience and deep-domain knowledge to guide you through the challenges associated with biodiversity requirements and reporting. Our dedicated ESG team understands that every project is unique, so we ensure to undertake the necessary fieldwork and reporting requirements to deliver results. We can assist your mine with baseline ecological assessments, threatened species assessments, biodiversity management plans, offset planning and impact analysis. In the current state of the mining industry, ESG related assessments are crucial for a successful project.

Want to learn more? Contact our team here.  

---