Nature and biodiversity are not just environmental concerns – they are economic imperatives. Ecosystem services like water purification, pollination, and climate regulation support nearly half of global GDP, yet these systems face tremendous threats. WWF reports a 73% decline in wildlife populations since 1970, and habitat loss continues to endanger livelihoods and economic stability.
Mining is still widely seen as inherently destructive, and the idea that it could support positive environmental outcomes is often met with scepticism. To challenge these assumptions and contribute to solutions, we therefore need a more robust and comprehensive understanding of the industry’s impacts on local ecosystems and its capacity to protect and restore them.
In response, the World Gold Council (WGC) has released its first major report on gold mining’s nature-related impacts: Gold, Nature and Biodiversity: An Introduction. This marks a strategic shift, pivoting from its climate-focused work to a broader environmental perspective. The goal is to better understand how gold mining affects ecosystems, and the species and people that depend upon them, while also exploring the industry’s potential contributions to enhanced resilience and conservation.
We cannot deny that historical mining practices have often left environmental scars and indelibly shaped public perception. These legacies, though not reflective of current standards, highlight the need for credible data-driven insights. To that end, WGC partnered with experts at S&P Global Sustainable1 to apply their Nature Risk Profile methodology to 122 gold mines across 30+ countries and diverse biomes. This framework, aligned with the LEAP approach from the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), allows for standardised comparisons of ecological impacts and dependencies across a range of locations and assets (in this case, gold mines).
The findings reveal a nuanced picture that might challenge common assumptions. About 71% of assessed mines fall into the ‘Moderately Low’ to ‘Low’ impact category, suggesting that formal, industrial gold mining may not be as ecologically harmful as often suggested. However, that is not to say its impacts are insignificant. Also, importantly, the study excludes unregulated artisanal gold mining, where impacts may be more severe – though reliable data is extremely limited.
Among the 16 sites rated as having ‘Very High’ impact, most are in ecologically significant but already degraded regions. Unfortunately, the methodology doesn’t establish causality, so attributing responsibility requires caution. In many cases, negative impacts stem from a mix of mining, historical land use, and other local activities. This underscores the need to understand how ecosystem conditions, local social needs, and mining operations interact.
Encouragingly, the report indicates that many mining companies are already taking substantial steps to mitigate ecosystem vulnerabilities. These include land rehabilitation, species protection, and enhancing ecosystem services – often undertaken in collaboration with surrounding communities – to the mutual benefit of both the mine and local population.
The report introduces indicators to quantify nature-related risks, helping stakeholders align with biodiversity frameworks like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and TNFD. While nature is complex, the metrics used offer broadly comparable, potentially actionable insights for investors, regulators, and operators. That said, the report also highlights that high-level data must be complemented by site-specific details, requiring local knowledge (of both species and communities) to guide practical solutions. Turning to industry actions, it features a range of examples of good practice and proactivity detailing how mine operators are currently implementing local nature-focused solutions.
This report is a starting point, not a conclusion. By integrating global risk mapping with local insights, it offers an overarching blueprint for how gold mining can support ecosystem resilience and biodiversity. It aims to foster deeper analysis, better benchmarking, and a clearer understanding of sectoral impacts and site-level solutions. The ultimate goal is to understand the interconnections between climate, nature, and socio-economic progress – identifying risks, impacts, and opportunities for positive change.