Building Resilient Communities: The Environmental Observatory for Mining Projects and Climate Change Indicators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

GENERAL COMMENTS 

 

The manuscript entitled “Building resilient communities: the Environmental Observatory for Mining Projects and climate change indicators" presents the Environmental Observatory for Mining Projects a tool developed in a research project in Chile. The manuscript details the methodology to create such tool and explains the resulting 25 indicators, these give information on the impacts and vulnerabilities of climate change and hence could be used to take decision in vulnerable communities and enhance resilience.

 

The methodology applied was inclusive of key stakeholders including individuals from civil society and members of public and private organizations.  On the other hand, the choice of the SMART techniques was adequate, and the data collection seems it was carried out in a careful and integrated way. Results give a glimpse of the platform, and it looks like a didactical tool. And although authors recognize that the observatory is on early stages, conclusions should be strengthened.

 

Authors should reflect and include comments on:

 

1.    Given the poor social and environmental performance of mining companies, how to convince members of the communities to approach a tool related to mining projects? 

2.    How this tool could be avoid being used for greenwashing?

3.    What periods of time will be necessary to monitor to observe that resilience indicators are working?

4.    Could this tool be adapted to mining projects on indigenous communities (such as Mapuche tribe) and respect C169 ILO?

 

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

 

There are not keywords in the manuscript I downloaded.

 

 

Author Response

Point 1: Given the poor social and environmental performance of mining companies, how to convince members of the communities to approach a tool related to mining projects?

Response 1: The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development indicates that environmental issues are best handled with participation of all concerned members of the general public. To this end, environmental information must be provided effectively so that society can be aware of the state of the environment and impacts upon it, express informed opinions and demand accountability for government authority and private sector performance, with the ultimate aim of safeguarding and preventing environmental damage (Herrera et al, 2013).

By involving civil society in the process of environmental management allows for their participation in defining their own future, in the formulation of public policies and in decision-making with greater legitimacy (Mascarenhas et al, 2019). Thus, the co-creation technique allows those involved to consider all perspectives and generate solutions that minimize the risks associated with the implementation of environmental management in a systemic way (OECD, 2017 in LIP, 2017).

According to Norris (2008), empowering community settings are characterised by inspired and committed leadership and opportunities for members to play meaningful roles (Maton & Salem ,1995). Wandsmerman & Florin (2000) summarised three main areas of research on citizen participation — who participates and why, how organisational characteristics influence participation, and the effects of participation on community conditions and participants' own sense of efficacy — that provide a solid framework for examining grassroots participation in disaster preparedness and recovery efforts. Citizen participation is therefore a fundamental element of community resilience

Point 2: How this tool could be avoid being used for greenwashing?

Response 2: The understanding of environmental management information and its appropriation through the platform could prevent greenwashing by mining companies. In this sense, given the involvement and interaction between the three groups of actors and the processes and stages involved in decision-making, the construction of indicators follows an analytical-methodological process that -based on the tools and techniques of participation- allows to know the current scenario of public information of an environmental nature and develop indicators that contribute to making the information more centralized, accessible and understandable by all the actors that allow contributing to the formation of informed citizens. These citizens are the ones who will increasingly demand transparent and quality public information from public actors, and these must demand the same from private actors accordingly. These last ones, can and should improve their environmental performance in response to the demands of the other stakeholder groups, in order to avoid transaction costs associated with negotiations arising from potential conflicts.

Point 3: What periods of time will be necessary to monitor to observe that resilience indicators are working?

Response 3: The final stage of the project to make the platform available for use will bring further feedback that can be used to assess user understanding of the information provided and its use to prevent disasters resulting from human actions, in this case mining and climate change in general (Bonanno et al, 2015 in Shahpari Sani et al, 2022).

In this context, the results of this research serve as a starting point for the continuity of user-surveyed indicators and, as public data increases at all scales of analysis and becomes more robust, can be further developed. According to Chile's National Action Plan for Climate Change (Plan de Acción Nacional de Cambio Climático de Chile, 2020), the monitoring will be taken in place every five years.

Point 4: Could this tool be adapted to mining projects on indigenous communities (such as Mapuche tribe) and respect C169 ILO?

Response 4: The implementation of methodological processes of co-creation with users is therefore key. In this sense, the use of co-creation methods for the involvement of stakeholders as key and proactive agents in the horizontal creation of a community that learns about its needs and creates its own solutions, determines the success of the implementation. Likewise, the tacit knowledge of those who live in the territory cannot be excluded.

In this context, it is important to mention that this methodology has been used in previous public policy experiences, such as the development of a carrying capacity model for Easter Island, in which the original Rapa Nui people participated (Bergamini, et.al. 2021), as well as for the development of a toolkit for the management and conservation of wetlands (Bergamini, et.al. 2020), having the virtue of a broad participation of stakeholders, without bias or discrimination of any kind.

Point 5. SPECIFIC COMMENTS. There are not keywords in the manuscript I downloaded.

Response 5: Keywords: environmental information; mining; co-construction, resilient communities, indicators.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted paper is a very good piece of work, well designed and relevant for the Journal’s readership. However, there is an element that should be discussed a bit more in detail. It is the question of a resilience-based approach in managing the closure and abandonment of large mine tailing ponds. Mining tailing ponds are large infrastructure objects whose life cycle spans over several decades. They are indispensable for certain types of mines where technological process produces and rejects mud. They also have potential to generate risks for human life, property and environment. For that reason, it is essential to adequately manage them throughout all the stages of their life cycle. Research works generally cover all the phases of their useful life cycle, from their construction to the closure. Meanwhile, it seems that the less studied area is related to the closure and abandonment of mine tailing dams.

It is also worth highlighting that the mining companies operate in an increasingly complex operating and business environment that is characterized by deep intrinsic uncertainties related to the evolution of markets/customers, changing regulatory framework, new technologies including the advent of the Industry 4.0/5.0 concepts, rapidly changing natural environment, change in the political environment, malicious human actions, climate change, changes in demand, advent of new competitors, etc. They are unable to control or influence a great majority of those factors, but are profoundly exposed to their consequences. Such a context brings additional internal and external pressures regarding growing requirements for a better performance and competitiveness. It stretches the performance of technological systems and infrastructures (such as tailing dams) to their limits. Those situations generate both additional uncertainties and a stressful environment for both managers and workers causing a reduced performance in the case of longer exposures.

Complex technical and non-technical mechanisms that trigger the causal relationships of catastrophic tailing dam ruptures are still not fully understood particularly in the phase of their closure and abandonment. They can create new types of emerging risks through unexpected behaviors and combinations of various influence factors (technological, natural, human). Those new, previously unknown or not considered risks related to tailing dam rupture could pose utmost challenges to resilience, safety and business continuity of mining companies. They can be related to various activities such as new processes, new technologies, new types of workplace, social or organizational change, and their combinations. Consequently, this context may often overwhelm cognitive capacities of involved people resulting in an inadequate human and organizational performance that latter plays a key role in creating favorable conditions for those accidents.

Thus, it is strongly recommended to provide some more detailed discussion upon this topic. Some publications could be useful in this regard: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2020.05.007.

Author Response

Point 1: The submitted paper is a very good piece of work, well designed and relevant for the Journal’s readership. However, there is an element that should be discussed a bit more in detail. It is the question of a resilience-based approach in managing the closure and abandonment of large mine tailing ponds.

Thus, it is strongly recommended to provide some more detailed discussion upon this topic.

Response 1: Chilean mining is one of the activities that contributes the most to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions in Chile, emissions that reach 7% directly (direct emissions or Scope 1), but which increase to 21% of total emissions. emissions when accounting for indirect emissions, upstream and downstream the operation (indirect emissions or Scope 2). A large part of the CO2 emissions corresponds precisely to energy consumption (Commission on Future Challenges, Science, Technology and Innovation, 2023).

To achieve a carbon-neutral mining industry, it is essential to promote an energy transition process that, along with reducing emissions, has a reliable traceability system, a task that is not only large but also highly complex. In this sense, the mining sector has begun efforts to reduce emissions, by increasing energy efficiency and transitioning to clean energy sources. It is expected that by 2023, about 2/3 of the sector's consumption will be supplied by renewables and, in the long run achieve decarbonization of the energy matrix by 2040.

 

On a global scale, the demand for products derived from the extractive industry is increasing, which has resulted in the production of a significant volume of waste that contains potentially dangerous polluting material due to its toxic nature (Fyfe 1981, Forstner, 1999). The magnitude and often toxicity of the material contained in the tailings means that any impoundment failure and consequent discharge to river systems will inevitably affect water and sediment quality, aquatic and human life in an area of significant impact (Edwards, 1996, Macklin et al, 2003, 2006, Hudson-Edwars et al. 2003). The main waste stream is tailings, which are often stored in reservoirs or dams that can fail, with consequent environmental, economic, and human health impacts (Kossoff et al 2014). Several authors have collected information on tailings failures (Davies et al. 2000, Rico et al, 2008). Kossoff et al. (2014) point out that, although the data on this type of accidents is valuable, it is incomplete (Villarroel et al. 2006) and is not reported in the scientific literature or in the media, which could be due to fears of bad publicity and the legal consequences that this type of accident entails (Davies et al. 2002). An analysis of tailings dam failure data in Europe by Rico et al. 2008 (in Kossoff et al. 2014) concluded that 83% of failures occurred in active dams, 15% in inactive and abandoned dams, and only 2% in inactive but maintained dams, being able to classify these failures in relation to: foundations, slope instability, overflow, mine collapse, unusual rain, snow melt, pipes or leaks, seismic liquefaction, structural and maintenance. Examples in Chile of seismically induced incidents include failures of six dams during the 1965 earthquake (Dobry and Álvarez, 1967) and two during the 1985 earthquake (Castro and Troncoso, 1989), 1997 and 2010 earthquake (Villavicencio et al. 2013). This data analyzes key characteristics of reported incidents, including failures derived from the 2010 mega-earthquake, engineering practices and improvements in the regulatory framework that have allowed progressive improvements in the construction, operation and closure of mines. In particular, these improvements refer to the fields of security and risk management, as well as analyzes after major disaster events (Komljenovic et al. 2020).

The management of tailings dams during closure and abandonment is challenging due to the numerous unknown variables that may impact the site over an extended period, leading to significant uncertainties (Komljenovic et al. 2020). In this context, resilience is an approach that allows the management and treatment of the risks and uncertainties of the environment as a way of minimizing impacts.

 

On the other hand, the legal and regulatory framework is one of the pillars of the overall resilience management regarding the closure of the final disposal site. Its objective is to protect public safety and ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of the abandoned site. Here, public information on the risk of climate change becomes important, as an essential input for public policy. In this regard, different Chilean governments have made a necessary effort to provide and improve climate change risk maps as a critical information piece, which have been explicitly incorporated in National Plan on Climate Change 2017-2022: Measure MA5: “Generate and update vulnerability maps in the national territory”.  This commitment aims to provide crucial input for the mining sector, especially for land planning and risk management, in the light of cases such as the city of Copiapó, where there are more than 30 abandoned and inactive mine tailings. Extreme events such as heavy rainfall and floods have historically generated enormous pressure in the territory due to their high mercury, lead, and arsenic concentrations from mine tailing. For instance, the flood of March 2015, whose impacts in terms of soil drag had essential consequences on the concentrations of pollutants, is being analyzed in some studies. In many cases, it increased concentrations of arsenic, lead, and mercury even to double the situation before the flood, suggesting that the flood carried pollutants into the city from abandoned tailings (Cortes et al., 2016). This case suggests the importance of appropriate land planning and mining projects, from a careful design to an integrated closure.

 

The recently approved National Mining Policy (2022) of Chile, seeks to establish a new mining development model for the next 30 years, stating the relationship between mining and other issues, defining specific objectives and goals towards "green" or "sustainable" mining. Specifically, it refers to the relationship with the emission of greenhouse gases, biodiversity, abandoned mine tailings, environmental institutions and regulations, climate change mitigation in a context in which- according to the World Bank (2020)- “a low-carbon future will be significantly more mineral-intensive than observed in the reference scenario. By 2050, the global demand for "strategic minerals" such as lithium, graphite and nickel will experience an extraordinary increase of 965%, 383% and 108% respectively. While the growing demand for minerals and metals is an opportunity for mineral-rich developing countries, it is also a challenge: without climate-smart mining practices, the negative impact of mining activities will increase, affecting vulnerable communities and the environment.

However, and given the characteristics of mining and its long history of socio-environmental impacts, many believe that making it "green" will not be possible; while others see this as an attempt to greenwash or launder the corporate image by the large multinational mining companies, especially through their areas of corporate social responsibility and community relations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is entitled " Building resilient communities: the Environmental Observatory for Mining Projects and climate change indicators", was carefully reviewed. However, I cannot find any advancement in knowledge regarding new and insightful results. This paper is in fact more like a working paper or an applied research report, rather than an academic paper in a general sense. It lacks clear research questions and scientific methods, and is not suitable for public publication as a research paper.

Author Response

Point 1: The manuscript is entitled " Building resilient communities: the Environmental Observatory for Mining Projects and climate change indicators", was carefully reviewed. However, I cannot find any advancement in knowledge regarding new and insightful results.

This paper is in fact more like a working paper or an applied research report, rather than an academic paper in a general sense. It lacks clear research questions and scientific methods, and is not suitable for public publication as a research paper.

Response 1: The Environmental Observatory for Mining Projects is in the prototype phase, currently being implemented in four of the 346 municipalities in the country, integrating information from four public services: Ministry of the Environment, Environmental Assessment Service, Superintendence of the Environment and the Second Environmental Court.

Chile has emerged as one of the fastest growing economies in extractive mining production. It is now the world's leading copper producer with an annual production of over 5.7 million tonnes (2020), equivalent to 30% of total global production and more than three times that of the second largest producer. Mining activity therefore has a significant impact on aspects such as employment levels, GDP and tax revenues.

Point 2: Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the perspective of previous studies and of the working hypotheses. The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible.

Response 2: As a research question for this article, it is asked whether it is possible to increase the resilience of communities through the development of an environmental management information system for the mining industry, which integrates information from different public services and is developed with user-centered co-creation methodologies?

The hypothesis proposed is that through a system of access to public information on environmental management that integrates information from different public services (referring to mining projects in the Valparaíso and Metropolitan Region), allows for a decrease in access gaps to environmental management information, facilitates understanding of this information, increases the value of integration, and therefore increases the resilience of communities. All this given that the proposed system, being provided to citizens is created through the development of indicators, their visualization and linkage to the origin of the data.

The objective of this paper is to show how the development of an Environmental Observatory for Mining Projects can contribute towards building up community resilience to face climate change by: generating indicators that provide relevant information on climate change mitigation and adaptation; and using a co-creation methodology that fosters public, private and civil society participation, thus favouring wider stakeholder involvement and commitment.

Point 3: Future research directions may also be highlighted.

Response 3: environmental information systems must not only contain information that is critical for civil society knowledge, but also provide understandable, manageable, comparable and interoperable information in order to become a tool that promotes access to information for all, thus enabling the creation of resilient communities.

In this sense, the proposed hypothesis is confirmed, even though studies are still under development and that will deepen the levels of appropriation of the platform, allowing the measurement of the improvements in the levels of understanding of the environmental management information made available.

Future works that are planned to develop will seek to expand the information provided by the platform in order to include all territory of Chile, incorporating new indicators, but above all improving the functionalities, so that its use and understanding of the environment increases, and as a result, enhancing the resilience of the communities.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

accept

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Academic Editor Notes

Minor revisions are suggested to improve the article:

1. References are needed about the greening of mining. Who are the many?

[..] However, and given the characteristics of mining and its long history of socio- environmental impacts, many believe that making it "green" will not be possible; while others see this as an attempt to greenwash or launder the corporate image by the large multinational mining companies, especially through their areas of corporate social responsibility and community relations.

Response 1:

Page5

However, and given the characteristics of mining and its long history of socio-environmental impacts, many believe that making it "green" will not be possible due to the conflicts it generates in the territory (Viana-Ríos, 2018; Svampa, 2009; Sanchez-Vasquez, 2016), the environmental impact of these projects, mainly on water resources (Velásquez, 2012 and Acosta et al, 2010 in Sanchez-Vasquez, 2016) and the environmental and social costs that can be very high in terms of impacts and remediation (Twerefou, 2009; Viana-Ríos, 2018). Others see this as an attempt to greenwash or launder the corporate image by the large multinational mining companies, especially through their areas of corporate social responsibility and community relations. In this sense, initiatives such as the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (2023) is evaluating the transparency and integrity of company emission reductions and Net Zero targets, realizing that most companies' climate strategies have ambiguous commitments. and compensation plans that lack credibility, even when good practices can be replicated (Day et al, 2023). According to CEPAL (2018), the application of a long-term strategic vision for mining must include increasing the efficiency of water use, deepening recycling, promoting the use of renewable energies, reducing its carbon footprint and others. technical and technological changes to achieve a greener and more traceable mining, including approaches to efficiency, life cycle, community relations and income generation and distribution.

 

2. The previous review suggested to discuss how the tool should be adapted to mining projects on indigenous communities (such as Mapuche tribe) and respect C169 ILO. According to this it is suggested to identify how the methodology can be an opportunity in addressing the Convention indications as in Chile mining projects interested indigenous territories and they are source of conflicts and of increasing of vulnerabilities.

Response 2:

Page 20

In this context, it is essential to mention that this methodology has been used in previous public policy experiences, such as the development of a carrying capacity model for Easter Island, in which the original Rapa Nui people participated (Bergamini et al. 2021), as well as for the development of a toolkit for the management and conservation of wetlands (Bergamini et al. 2020), having the virtue of broad participation of stakeholders, without bias or discrimination of any kind. In the future, considering these methodologies as part of the strategies to address ILO Convention 169 (Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile (BCN), 2014) is critical to achieving the consent of indigenous communities and, through this, reducing socio-environmental conflicts that may exist with the mining industry (Godoy, C. 2022; Hernández & Sazo, 2015).

 

3. One of the main argumentations of the paper is that co-creation among key stakeholders is developed with the aim of reducing gaps in access, comprehension and appropriation of environmental information related to mining. So, key stakeholder should be better identified in their participation to different stages of the co-creation process.

It looks like mainly powerful actors are being involved despite the platform has the major aim to influence the resilience of communities at risk.

So how it has been included or not this tacit knowledge?

Response 3:

Page 9

[...] From this perspective, the use of needfinding, ideation, prototyping and testing processes (Brown, T., 2009) of the solution, contributes to the empowerment of the community. Users (public sector, civil society and private sector) are invited to participate during the project in analysis, discussion, dialogue, reflection, learning, exploration, and sense-making (Salvatierra, R., 2021). Knowing what users think allows us to redefine the problem and co-create the solution, moving from the obvious problem to the deep problem and from a top down solution proposal to a bottom up proposal. This process takes advantage of the tacit knowledge that arises from the user's own experience. It makes it explicit, giving depth to the discovery and diagnostic process and enriching the subsequent development of the research team (Kuang, C & Fabricant, R., 2019).

This incorporation allows managing the uncertainty (Seelos & Mair, 2016, as cited in LIP, 2020) that arises in innovation processes. These types of uncertainty are about: i) the definition of the problem or need, ii) the solution, iii) the identity, iv) the adoption, v) the management, and vi) the consequences.

[...] However, this requires those stakeholders who are directly affected to be empowered and invited to contribute their knowledge, experience and expertise to the solution to be developed (Blomkamp, 2018). Their active participation in the development of the creative processes of solutions is key throughout the entire design process, i.e., identifying the problem and ideation, prototyping and testing of the solution.

Page 11

     [...] The facilitation of the co-creation workshops by the research teams, working with the users, ensured the inclusion of the tacit and explicit knowledge of each type of stakeholder in the different stages of the project. This contributes to managing the uncertainty (Seelos & Mair, 2016, as cited in LIP, 2020) associated with social innovation projects such as the Environmental Observatory.

 

[...] Defining the gaps in access to information together with the users in stage one, made it possible to manage the uncertainty around the definition of the problem or need (Seelos & Mair, 2016, as cited in LIP, 2020). The possibility of conducting interviews with stakeholders from the public sector, civil society and the private sector made it possible, on the one hand, to take advantage of the tacit knowledge they have about the problem as users. On the other hand, it prevented an insufficient or erroneous understanding of the problem or need and promoted that, in the following stages, the solution would meet their expectations.

 

Page 12

 

[...] The active participation of users in the second stages workshops, contributes to the management of tacit knowledge from the public, private and civil society sectors, and for them to express their will for joint decision making. They selected the indicators that responded to their needs, expectations and dreams respectively, which helped the research team leverage the uncertainties getting closer to an effective solution (Seelos & Mair, 2016, as cited in LIP, 2020).

Page 13

[...] Finally, in this third stage of the project, the development of testing workshops with the different stakeholders was the last instance where the will and knowledge of the users was reflected. Through the tests carried out using the platform, it was possible to perceive, once again, that the tacit knowledge of the users could be managed and applied in the development of the solution.  From this perspective, the team was able to manage the uncertainties arising in the following way: i) identity, guaranteeing the alignment of the solution with the users; ii) adoption, reducing the risk of users not using the platform; iii) management, previewing the practices that must be adequately managed for its implementation; and iv) consequences, allowing to preview the direct consequences and externalities of the Environmental Observatory project (Seelos & Mair, 2016, cited in LIP, 2020).

Page 20

The methodological strategy was intensive in the facilitation of co-creation workshops with users, ensuring the inclusion of the tacit knowledge of each type of actor in the processes of needfinding, ideation, prototyping, testing and implementation. This integration of the knowledge of civil society with the explicit knowledge of public and private sector experts allowed, on the one hand, to enrich the development of the project, and on the other hand, to contribute to the management of uncertainty (LIP, 2020) in each of the stages of the project. Both purposes contributed to reducing the potential risk of non-adoption of the Environmental Observatory, as a solution resulting from a social innovation process.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx