# data[].attributes.headline
Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach

# data[].attributes.subject
Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Estimating the Economic Values of Restricted Monoculture Eucalyptus Plantations: A Choice Modeling Approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, evaluating ecological wellbeing and ecosystem services is becoming a great concern towards conserving the natural resource base. Healthy functioning ecosystems have fundamental roles for aiding humankind to lead a healthy life and ensure an…

# data[].attributes.headline
As Shortages Mount, Countries Hunt for Novel Sources of Water

# data[].attributes.subject
As Shortages Mount, Countries Hunt for Novel Sources of Water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As shortages mount, countries hunt for novel sources of water

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 2 billion people live in water-stressed countries, a number expected to grow as climate change and other factors weigh on freshwater supplies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coal Mining in India: A Dual-Edged Sword for People and Forests – ritimo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The history of coal mining in India dates back to the late 18th century. India, today stands as one of the world’s largest coal-producing nations, relying heavily on this fossil fuel for energy…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
SME - Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The extraction and processing of mined materials generally require water. Water is also the primary vehicle by which mining-related contaminants can inadvertently be transported into the environment and worsen the quality of water resources. Impacted water quality is a major environmental concern associated with historical and abandoned mines in the U.S. and worldwide. In modern mine planning and permitting, considerable analysis and planning are often required by regulatory agencies during the project design phase to minimize potential impacts to water resources. Prevention of water quality degradation is an important step in ensuring environmental sustainability in mining areas.

Background

Water use and potential environmental impacts to surface and ground water vary greatly and depend on the size of the mine, its proximity to water resources, the commodity mined (base or precious metals, coal, industrial minerals, aggregates, etc.), the type of deposit (e.g., skarn, porphyry, placer), the method of ore processing (crushing, screening, washing, flotation, leaching), and the mining method (underground, solution, open pit, or dredging). Potential mining-related impacts include both physical and chemical degradation of surface and ground waters. These impacts include sediment discharge and deposition in rivers and lakes and discharges of salty or acidic waters that can often contain dissolved metals and other mine-related constituents.

The legacy of historic mining in the United States is estimated to include more than 500,000 abandoned or inactive mines1. Nearly all of these were operated before modern day mining and environmental controls were instituted. Many of these abandoned mines have the potential for acid generation or other processes that can cause water quality impacts. Internationally, artisanal mining continues to use many of these earlier techniques, creating additional regions of mine-impacted waters.
Common Water Quality Issues
A major water quality concern related to mining is the formation of acid rock drainage (ARD), sometimes also called acid mine drainage. ARD results from the reaction of water and oxygen with sulfide minerals (pyrite, pyrrhotite, etc.) contained in mined or exposed rock. It leads to acidic waters that mobilize toxic metals, sulfate, and other dissolved solids. When these waters are discharged into surrounding aquifers, lakes, and streams, they can make the water unsafe for people to drink and degrade habitat suitability for aquatic species. Not all types of ore deposits can generate ARD, but metals and other contaminants still can be released.

Another common water quality issue in mining is the physical transport of sediment into water, creating suspended solids. This process can happen as a result of erosion of the ground surface or stored geologic materials. When the amount of suspended solids in water is too high, the water can be less suitable for on-site reuse, requiring more water consumption. When suspended solids are transported to natural waters, they can increase temperature and decrease dissolved oxygen and light penetration, degrading habitat.

The chemicals used in the extraction and processing of ores can also present water quality issues. Although large-scale modern mines carefully manage on-site chemical usage, historic and artisanal mines can release these compounds, such as mercury and cyanide from gold processing.
Management and Treatment
Important elements of modern mine permitting include assuring the public and government agencies that the potential for water quality impacts is clearly understood and disclosed and that sound water management practices have been incorporated in the planning and design the new mine, including during the pre- and post-mining phases. During operations, mines also have the regulatory and social responsibility to monitor and report on the effectiveness of the water management procedures.

Water discharged from mining operations must meet stringent water quality standards. Federal, state, and local regulations govern mine waste and water management, as well as closure planning and post-closure mitigation and monitoring. Financial assurance requirements have also evolved to better accommodate the known costs of environmental cleanup and mine closure, including any post-closure water treatment requirements, which can be significant and long-term.

Water quality control options can consist of methods to limit reactions between water and mine wastes, manage the flow of potentially impacted waters, and treat impacted waters prior to discharge. Methods that limit the potential for reactions between water and mine wastes include locating mine wastes in areas with limited usable water resources, isolating mine wastes from the environment through the use of liners and caps, and subaqueous disposal of tailings and other mined materials, which uses overlying water to limit the amount of oxygen that can react with the materials. Management of water flow on a mine site can include leachate collection systems, diversion features for run-on and run-off water, and tunnels and cut-offs (e.g., grout curtains or bulkheads) for water within underground workings. Treatment can consist of active measures, such as wastewater treatment plants with reverse osmosis, aeration, or clarification systems, or passive treatments, such as engineered wetlands and reactive barriers or drains. Many of these options can be applied at new and operating mines as well as at historic mines, where they are used by mining companies and government agencies to remediate contamination from historic mining, such as in the stream shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Mining-impacted stream before and after treatment (PA DEP https://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/NewsRoomPublic/articleviewer.aspx?id=21946&typeid=1)

SME Statement of Technical Position

SME supports the goals to continually improve management of water at mines and minimize the effects of mining on water quality by:

Preventing or minimizing the generation of acid drainage and the migration of mine-related contaminants to surface and ground water resources;

Maximizing water recycling during operations to minimize consumption and discharge; and

Integrating pollution prevention and water treatment measures in mine planning and design during the entire mining lifecycle.

These goals can be achieved by:

Facilitating research, education, and training in scientific approaches to improving water quality at mining operations;

Developing additional water re-use technologies for water encountered at mine sites;

Developing mine dewatering approaches that minimize water extraction rates and reduce water quality impacts;

Promoting cooperation among international stakeholders engaged in scientific or engineering work in the field of mine water problems and related sciences; and

Promoting the exchange and publication of water-related scientific and engineering information.

Download PDF
References

¹ McLemore, V.T. ed., Basics of metal mining influenced water (Vol. 1). SME, 2008.

Gusek, J.J. and Figueroa, L.A. eds., Mitigation of metal mining influenced water (Vol. 2). SME, 2009.

Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, Mining Waste. https://itrcweb.org/teams/projects/mining-waste

International Network for Acid Prevention, Global Acid Rock Drainage Guide, http://www.gardguide.com/

Mine Environment Neutral Drainage, http://mend-nedem.org/default/?lang=en

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mining and Water Quality - Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SME - Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Natural Disasters Affect Our Water Supply

# data[].attributes.subject
How Natural Disasters Affect Our Water Supply

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Natural disasters wreak havoc on everything in their path. Their raw power can destroy entire neighborhoods, communities, and cities. Since 2009, there have been over 3,000 natural disasters worldwide, costing nearly $1.4 trillion in clean-up and recovery efforts. Many wounds left by natural disasters never fully heal, but from a logistical point of view, repairing water infrastructure presents a complicated and lasting impact. Here are some things to be aware of in the event of a water-contaminating event in your area.

# data[].attributes.headline
Emerging Giants: Building World-Class Companies in Developing Countries

# data[].attributes.subject
Emerging Giants: Building World-Class Companies in Developing Countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emerging Giants: Building World-Class Companies in Developing Countries

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Reprint: R0610C Over the past 20 years, waves of liberalization have all but washed away protectionist barriers in developing countries. As multinational corporations from North America, Western Europe, Japan, and South Korea stormed into the emerging markets, many local companies lost market share or sold off businesses—but some fought back. India’s Mahindra & Mahindra, China’s Haier Group, and many other corporations in developing countries have held their own against the onslaught, restructured their businesses, exploited new opportunities, and built world-class companies that are today giving their global rivals a run for their money. In this article, the authors, citing the results of their six-year study of “emerging giants,” describe the three strategies these businesses used to become effective global competitors—despite facing financial and bureaucratic disadvantages in their home markets. Some capitalized on their knowledge of local product markets . The Philippines’ Jollibee Foods, for instance, has profitably battled McDonald’s because it realizes that Filipinos like their burgers to have a particular soy and garlic taste. Some have exploited their knowledge of local talent and capital markets, thereby serving customers both at home and abroad in a cost-effective manner. India’s software companies, for instance, recognized the possibility of providing services to overseas customers at least a decade before Western companies even considered hiring Indian software professionals. And some emerging giants have exploited institutional voids to create profitable businesses. China’s Emerge Logistics, for instance, helps foreign companies navigate the country’s disjointed transportation system and baffling bureaucracy, guiding them all the way from ports to retail outlets. The authors’ research indicates there’s more than one way to skin the proverbial cat: Some emerging-market companies compete in several countries, but others sell only at home. Emerging giants can be successful even if they don’t have global footprints, Khanna and Palepu conclude.

# data[].attributes.headline
13 Major Companies Responsible for Deforestation

# data[].attributes.subject
13 Major Companies Responsible for Deforestation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent analysis by the Zoological Society of London found that over half of the 100 most significant tropical timber and pulp companies do not publicly commit to protecting biodiversity and only 44% have yet to publicly commit to zero deforestation. As of 2021, forests still cover about 31% of the world's land area, but they are disappearing at an alarming rate. Since 1990, the world lost 1.3 million square kilometres of forest due to deforestation for land uses and commercial agriculture. The area of primary forest worldwide has since decreased by over 80 million hectares. A number of companies remain to be the drivers for deforestation and they should be named and shamed and held accountable for their actions, which threaten every inhabitant of the planet: human, animal, and plant. There are many, but here are 13 major companies that are responsible for deforestation.
-

Who Is Responsible for Deforestation?

1. Cargill

The US-based company has a long history of destruction and one of the biggest companies that contribute to deforestation, according to a report by the NGO Mighty Earth. The report details how Cargill profits from the destruction of the environment and the exploitation of people. In Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia, Cargill is involved in the destruction of the Amazon, Grand Chaco, and Cerrado ecosystems for the production of soy and beef. In Côte d'Ivoire and Ghana, Cargill buys coca that has been illegally grown in protected areas and national parks. In Indonesia and Malaysia, Cargill buys palm oil from companies that illegally clear rainforests. The report also claims that Cargill uses inaccurate accounting methods to underestimate how harmful its practices are. Its corporate customers include McDonald's, Burger King, Walmart, Walmart, Unilever, and more.

2. BlackRock

In January 2020, investment firm BlackRock announced it would exit investments with high environmental risks, including thermal coal. They also said that they would launch new investment products that screen for fossil fuels. However, BlackRock has been accused of " climate hypocrisy " since, in September, a big data tool found that the firm's ESG funds hold companies with a deforestation risk that stretches over 500 hectares of land, more than any other fund.

3. Wilmar International Ltd.

The world's largest refiner and trader of palm oil, Wilmar International received a total score of 25% on Forest 500, which assesses the biggest companies in the world in terms of their anti-deforestation commitments. The company is one of the world's largest oil palm plantation owners and processors, reportedly controlling around 45% of worldwide palm oil trade sourced from more than 80% of global palm oil growers. Wilmar also has a global soybean crushing capacity of 36 million metric tons per year, the majority of which is in China. It has no commitments to protect priority forests and no commitments to report on its supply chain. They also do not monitor or verify supplier compliance. Furthermore, in April 2020, the company left a committee that helps to identify forest areas for protection.

4. Walmart
You might also like: 10 Amazon Rainforest Deforestation Facts to Know About
Walmart has set zero-deforestation goals for 2020, however, it does not have a system in place to track and monitor the origin of forest-risk commodities - palm oil, pulp and paper, soy, and beef; it says that implementing such a system is " not an immediate business priority. " It is unlikely that it will meet the goals defined for these key commodities, but it also "does not know" what percentage of the soy and beef used in the product it sells is produced with zero net deforestation.

In 2019, Mighty Earth was publicly linked to the fires in the Amazon as it conducted business with the Brazilian beef company JBS. Walmart is also a major buyer of Cargill's products, the second-largest Brazilian soy exporter.

5. JBS

JBS is one of Brazil's leading exporters of beef and one of the more known deforestation companies. It operates over 200 production facilities worldwide, processing many tens of thousands of cattle per day. In addition to beef, JBS uses soy in its animal feed in cattle feedlots, poultry, and swine farms. On the Forest 500 index, it has received a score of just 39%.

Further, in July 2020, JBS reportedly acquired cattle from a farm in the Brazilian Amazon which is under sanction for illegal deforestation, the fifth time in a year that the company has been linked to illegal deforestation.

6. IKEA

Despite claims that it does not accept illegally logged wood in its products, a report accused IKEA of sourcing manufactured products from suppliers that have used logs that were felled illegally in Ukraine. VGSM, one of IKEA's suppliers, also cut down trees during a "silence period" between April and mid-June, when certain forms of logging in Ukraine are banned during the critical breeding period for lynx and other species. Those logs were also felled under a "sanitary felling" permit, a widely-used loophole in Ukrainian that allows for trees to be cut down and sold provided they were already damaged by disease or insect infestation. These permits are often issued even when the felled trees show little or no signs of degradation.

According to the company, they are the largest producer of wooden furniture in the world, meaning that their operations require large amounts of timber.

Despite saying that it will investigate the claim and potentially end its relationship with the law-breaking supplier, the Swedish furniture company received a score of 48% on the Forest 500 index, failing in the commodity categories of timber, leather, pulp and paper, and palm oil. Its commitment strength to protect priority forests is also low for all commodities.

In 2021, the Swedish giant was also implicated in an Earthsight investigation for selling children's furniture made from wood linked to illegal logging in protected Siberian forests in Russia.

7. Korindo Group PT

Korindo group is an Indonesian-based producer, processor, and manufacturer of various products, including wind towers, battery separators, specialised container vehicles, and cast iron products. It has plantations of palm oil and timber.

A two-year investigation process by the International Board of Directors of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a global certification body on responsible forest management found the company guilty of violating its association policies. Korindo has engaged in massive-scale deforestation in Papua and North Maluku (more than 30 000 hectares in the two years prior to filing the complaint), Indonesia, and has been using the FSC's eco-forestry label to greenwash its practices. The investigation also found that the company destroys critical wildlife habitats and violates traditional and human rights. It sells its timber, plywood, pulpwood, biomass, and newsprint to Asia Pulp & Paper, APRIL, Sumitomo Forestry, Oji Corporation, and News Corps Australia.

The company has received a score of 38% on the Forest 500 index based on its poor commitment strength, reporting and implementation, and social considerations.

8. Yakult Honsha Co. Ltd

This is the Japanese manufacturer of the popular probiotic milk drink Yakult. It also produces a variety of other food and beverage products, as well as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. Through its various product lines, Yakult is exposed to forest risk commodity palm oil, soy, and pulp and paper.

Shockingly, it has a score of 3% on the Forest 500 index; it has made no commitments to protect any priority forests in which it operates. In 2018, it committed to ending deforestation by 2020 but it has since dropped that commitment.

9. Starbucks

In 2015, Starbucks was ranked as the largest chain of coffee shops in the world by the number of stores; in 2017, it had over 24 000 outlets in 70 countries. Starbucks also sells teas, bottled drinks, baked goods, snacks, and other food. Its products and packaging expose the company to various forest risk commodities such as palm oil, soy, beef, and paper. On the Forest 500 index, it performs very poorly for palm oil, soy, and pulp and paper, but especially soy, where its commitment strength, reporting and monitoring, and social consideration scores are abysmal. It scored 25% on the index overall, making it one of the companies that caused deforestation.

Starbucks says that 99% of its coffee is now ethically sourced, but it has yet to adopt sourcing policies that ensure that the palm oil in its baked goods does not contribute to deforestation, climate change, and human rights violations. A Wall Street Journal investigation found human rights abuses on plantations in Malaysia.

10. McDonald's

McDonald's has more than 36 000 locations in over 100 countries. Its burgers, sandwiches, sides, and beverages involve significant amounts of beef, soy, and palm oil, as well as paper in packaging. In 2015, over 120 000 metric tons of palm oil were used by McDonald's. The fast-food restaurant gets its soy from Cargill, one of the most renowned deforestation companies.

These companies conduct billions of dollars' worth of business all around the world- they should not be allowed to continue their wanton acts of destruction against the environment, deforestation or otherwise. Wherever possible, the countries in which they operate should mandate that they either source their products in an ethical and sustainable way, or move their production somewhere else. If every country were to take this hard a stance, these unethical companies would soon have nowhere to go.

11. Yum! Brands

The American fast food corporation owns a majority of the country's biggest fast food chains including KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. Considering the massive amounts of meat, soy, palm oil, and paper used in its restaurants in the US and across the world, Yum! Brand is unsurprisingly one of the major companies that contribute to deforestation in order to get ahold of these commodities. According to the WWF Palm Oil Buyers Scorecard in 2019, Yum rack up to a total of 157,776 tonnes of palm oil used in a year.

Despite the corporation having made a commitment to eliminate deforestation from their global supply chains by 2020, a CDP Consumer Deforestation Report found that not only Yum was not able to achieve that target, but industry-wide deforestation goals were also not met.

12. Procter & Gamble (P&G)

The consumer goods giant P&G was recently given a grade F in the released by Rainforest Action Network (RAN) when evaluating the major companies, banks and other parties who are involved in deforestation. P&G has been criticised for their inadequate action in addressing the impact of its sourcing of forest-risk commodities, and failure to ensure that their forest sourcing does not infringe on Indigenous rights and negatively impact threatened species.

The WWF reported that P&G used a total of 463,295 tonnes of palm oil in 2019 and was not able to guarantee sourcing 100% sustainable palm oil.
Featured image by: Sandile Ndlovu You might also like: How Does Deforestation Affect the Environment?
13. Ahold Delhaize

The supermarket chain Ahold Delhaize, which forms an umbrella over companies like Stop & Shop, Food Lion, Giant, Hannaford, and other brands, has said they aim to achieve zero deforestation and conversion by 2025. However in 2018, they launched a $100 million joint venture with Cargill to operate a new meat packaging plant supplying Ahold Delhaize's stores in the US, as well as continue to source meat from another leading deforestation company, JBS. The fact that the zero deforestation goal currently only applies to the company itself and not to the entire corporate group is also telling of its commitment to deforestation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
13 Major Companies Responsible for Deforestation | Earth.Org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Between 1990 and 2016, the world lost 1.3m sq km of forest. There are many, but here are 12 companies that are responsible for deforestation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global Extractive and Industrial Projects Disproportionately Impact Indigenous Peoples

# data[].attributes.subject
Global Extractive and Industrial Projects Disproportionately Impact Indigenous Peoples

# data[].attributes.headline
Two Thirds of World’s Natural Resources are Extracted in Countries Where Press Freedom is in Serious Danger

# data[].attributes.subject
Two Thirds of World’s Natural Resources are Extracted in Countries Where Press Freedom is in Serious Danger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Two thirds of world’s natural resources are extracted in countries where press freedom is in serious danger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of the world’s natural resources – fossil fuels, minerals and forest resources – come from countries where investigating their extraction and its environmental and social impacts is difficult, if not impossible. This is what Reporters Without Borders (RSF) found by looking at natural resource exploitation data in the light of its Press Freedom Index. RSF urges the international community to combat the obstacles to press freedom in these countries and ensure better protection for journalists so that they can cover the environmental challenges linked to extraction.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chinese Mining and Indigenous Resistance in Ecuador

# data[].attributes.subject
Chinese Mining and Indigenous Resistance in Ecuador

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chinese Mining and Indigenous Resistance in Ecuador

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chinese mining conglomerates sought to adapt to local conditions by forging alliances with the Ecuadorian national government. But these Chinese efforts to leverage local players undercut and divided Indigenous opposition in unsustainable ways that have backfired.