No abstract

The World Bank is the single largest source of development finance, with widereaching influence. The Bank's safeguards aim to minimize the negative impacts of the projects it funds. These policies have recently been updated in a new Environmental and Social Framework. For conservation, the key changes include a mechanism for the use of biodiversity offsets and borrowers' own frameworks to manage impacts. Concerns have been raised that these changes may weaken protections as there is substantial flexibility about when offsets or borrowers' frameworks can be used, and uncertainty around the efficacy of offsets. The project-by-project nature of these mechanisms and the lack of clear criteria may also hinder future efforts to hold the Bank to account. Concerns about these changes were raised by conservation organizations during the consultation process, but the framework's formulation does not fully reflect recommendations made. Although elements of the new policy have the potential to benefit conservation, the flexibility presents a risk to biodiversity. It is vital for conservation organizations to engage effectively to ensure that any negative impacts arising do not go unchallenged.

Mining is a vital part of the global, and many national, economies. Mining also has the potential to drive extensive land cover change, including deforestation, with impacts reaching far from the mine itself. Understanding the amount of deforestation associated with mining is important for conservationists, governments, mining companies, and consumers, yet accurate quantification is rare. We applied statistical matching, a quasi-experimental methodology, along with Bayesian hierarchical generalized linear models to assess the impact on deforestation of new mining developments in Zambia from 2000 to present. Zambia is a globally significant producer of minerals and mining contributes ~ 10% of its gross domestic product and ~ 77% of its exports. Despite extensive deforestation in mining impacted land, we found no evidence that any of the 22 mines we analysed increased deforestation compared with matched control sites. The extent forest lost was therefore no different than would likely have happened without the mines being present due to other drivers of deforestation in Zambia. This suggests previous assessments based on correlative methodologies may overestimate the deforestation impact of mining. However, mining can have a range of impacts on society, biodiversity, and the local environment that are not captured by our analysis.

No abstract

No abstract