Since the turn of the century, mining has increased by 52% due to surging demand for coal, iron, industrial minerals and other metals. In some cases, this extraction has come at the expense of forests, along with burdens to the communities who rely on them.
We analyzed tree cover loss data from the University of Maryland and a combination of studies on global mining extent and found that mining has increasingly pushed into forests around the world — especially tropical primary rainforests and protected areas. From 2001 to 2020, the world lost nearly 1.4 million hectares of trees from mining and related activities, an area of land roughly the size of Montenegro.
Felling these trees also released 36 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year into the atmosphere, an amount similar to Finland’s fossil fuel emissions in 2022.
Although mining’s role in global tree cover loss is small compared to the main drivers (for example, 130 million hectares were lost due to forestry and 90 million hectares from wildfire between 2001 and 2020), it can have outsized impacts regionally. This includes in tropical primary rainforests, some of the world’s most important ecosystems where mining is a growing driver of loss, and in Indigenous and local community territories, where people depend on forests for their livelihoods. Mining often involves extensive removal of vegetation and soil, making it difficult if not impossible to achieve full ecological recovery of cleared lands. It can also result in air and water pollution that affect human health and surrounding ecosystems.
Here, we examine tree cover loss linked to mining as well as what’s needed to lessen its impact in the future.
How Much Forest Loss Is Linked to Mining?
Of the 1.4 million hectares of mining-related tree cover loss from 2001 to 2020, 450,000 hectares were in tropical primary rainforests, 150,000 hectares were in protected areas, and 260,000 hectares were in Indigenous Peoples’ and local community lands. Mining-related loss in tropical primary rainforests is especially concerning because these are some of the most carbon-rich and biodiverse areas of the world. They also help regulate local and regional climate effects like rainfall and temperatures.
Moreover, these figures are likely conservative. They do not account for indirect tree cover loss caused by mining activities, such as building access roads for heavy machinery, storage facilities and other infrastructure. Evidence also shows that mining sites often expand, leading to in-migration and the establishment of nearby settlements that further degrade forests through agriculture and logging.
What’s Driving Mining-related Forest Loss?
Gold and coal have historically been the biggest drivers of tree cover loss related to mining. According to a WWF study, gold and coal extraction resulted in over 71% of all mining-related deforestation from 2001 to 2019. The current gold mining boom started shortly after the 2008 global financial crisis when the price of gold took off. And while coal use is declining, it still dominates the global energy mix, generating approximately 36% of electricity in 2022.
Critical minerals for things like smartphones and renewable energy are also becoming a growing driver of mining. This demand is expected to increase in coming years.
Two types of mining are common in forested areas:
- Large-scale mining is a regulated, landscape-transforming, industrial-scale extraction. It can include mountaintop removal for coal or the opening of large pits for metals such as copper or lithium. This type of mining is common in the United States and Australia.
- Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) is a largely informal sector that, despite its name, can lead to widespread superficial landscape impacts that are oftentimes more difficult to monitor relative to large-scale mining. ASM is sometimes illegal, when done without the appropriate land rights and mining licenses and permits. Informal and illegal mining is rife in the Amazon, Ghana and Myanmar for materials like gold and rare earth elements. While this type of mining can have negative impacts for both nature and human health, it can also provide economic support for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. A few grams of gold, for example, can amount to a month’s or year’s minimum wage in some rural communities in exporting countries.
Where Is Mining Affecting Forests?
Mining-related forest loss between 2001 and 2020 is quite concentrated, with 87% of tree cover loss and 89% of related emissions in the past two decades occurring in just 11 countries: Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, United States, Canada, Peru, Ghana, Suriname, Myanmar, Australia and Guyana.
Indonesia has the highest tree cover loss linked to mining (370,000 hectares) followed by Brazil (170,000 hectares), mostly due to coal mining and small-scale gold mining, respectively. Both countries are home to extensive swaths of tropical primary rainforests.
Impacts to forests from mining can be seen around the globe. Since different natural resources are found in different locations, the drivers of mining vary by geography, as do the specific ways mining affects forests.
According to a WWF study, 57% of tree cover loss linked to coal extraction from 2000 to 2019 happened in Indonesia alone. What’s more, Indonesian coal production has accelerated over the last 10 years, making the country one of the largest exporters of coal in the world. Mining in this region has taken a toll on people and landscapes. Mining denudes the topsoil across hilly landscapes; when torrential rains occur, water runs rapidly into nearby waterways, causing flooding and landslides that cause further tree cover and habitat loss.
But deforestation for coal production is not only a tropical problem. A WWF study showed that 20% of global coal-related tree cover loss happened in the United States between 2001 and 2019. From 2001 to 2020, 120,000 hectares of forest loss was related to mining, much of it linked to surface coal mining that deforested the Appalachian mountaintops in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. The ecological impact is long-term: Restoring these areas to the endemic mature red spruce forests of the past can take at least 50 years.
Cobalt, three-quarters of which is produced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), has been an important mineral for lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in electric vehicles and smartphones. Although mining remains a relatively small driver of tree cover loss in the DRC, it has led to the loss of 13,000 hectares of forests from 2001 to 2020. The demand for cobalt has risen by 70% since 2017 and is projected to increase 20-fold by 2040. In addition to causing deforestation, mining for cobalt exposes miners and the densely populated settlements nearby to toxic dust and particulates in the air and water.
Artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM) has a large footprint in Ghana, one of Africa’s leading gold-producing countries. Ghana lost 60,000 hectares of forest linked to mining from 2001 to 2020, most of which has been attributed to artisanal small-scale gold mining. About 2,500 hectares of the total tree cover loss linked to mining happened in tropical primary rainforests, threatening endemic species like the green-tailed bristlebill and the Tai Forest treefrog. While ASGM provides economic benefits for about 4.5 million people in Ghana, it takes a significant toll on forests and workers, who are often subject to poor working conditions and toxic pollutants.
Mining Disproportionately Affects Forest-dependent Indigenous and Local Communities
Indigenous Peoples and local communities who live in and near forests often rely on them for food, water, fuelwood, medicine and cultural benefits. Indigenous-held forests are also some of the world’s most important carbon sinks. Local communities, such as Afrodescendants in Central and South America, have a cultural connection to the land in the same way that Indigenous Peoples do, but they do not identify as Indigenous.
Despite treacherous conditions rife with human rights violations, artisanal mining is often the only means of income for some rural communities. Further, while mining can bring economic benefits to Indigenous and local communities, it also often happens without their consent. Most local communities lack secure rights to the resources beneath their lands. They’re often excluded from decisions to grant licenses and are not adequately compensated for loss of the forests, water and other natural resources on which they depend.
From 2001 to 2020, 260,000 hectares of forest, including 90,000 hectares of tropical primary rainforests, were lost globally related to mining activity on lands Indigenous Peoples and local communities occupy or use. About 19% of all tree cover loss linked to mining since the turn of the century has happened within Indigenous and community lands, likely due to their proximity to mineral and metal reserves.
For example, in the Amazon basin, where we have the most robust data on Indigenous and local community-held forests, 64% or more of the tree cover loss linked to mining in Suriname, Venezuela and Ecuador occurred on land occupied and used by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Because the Indigenous and community land maps used in this analysis cover approximately 13% of the world’s land out of an estimated 50% or more that is held by Indigenous Peoples and communities globally, it underestimates the impacts of mining on Indigenous territories.
| Country | All tree cover loss linked to mining 2001-2020 (hectares) | Tree cover loss linked to mining in Indigenous and community forests (hectares) | Percent loss linked to mining that occurred in Indigenous and community forests |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suriname | 56,000 | 48,000 | 84% |
| Venezuela | 23,000 | 19,000 | 83% |
| Ecuador | 1,800 | 1,000 | 64% |
| Peru | 69,000 | 13,000 | 19% |
| Brazil | 170,000 | 18,000 | 11% |
| Guyana | 43,000 | 4,000 | 9% |
| Bolivia | 1,700 | 130 | 8% |
| Colombia | 9,900 | 46 | 0% |
A WRI report found that as of 2020, mining concessions and illegal mining covered more than 20% of Indigenous lands in the Amazon, endangering hundreds of communities and critical ecosystems across an area the size of Morocco. According to RAISG, the Amazon Network of Georeferenced Socio-Environmental Information, there were 4,472 localities that experienced illegal mining in 2020, affecting 10% of the Indigenous territories of Amazonia. For example, for years, the A’i Cofán community of Sinangoe in the Ecuadorian Amazon have been resisting and monitoring illegal gold miners deforesting and polluting their territories.
Illegal gold mining, dubbed by The Washington Post as “the scourge of the Amazon,” strips the land of trees and pollutes rivers with mercury, a substance used in artisanal and small-scale gold mining (ASGM). In fact, ASGM is the largest source of mercury pollution not only in the Amazon, but in the world, impacting people, plants and animals everywhere.
Government Action and Responsible Practices Can Help Reduce Forest Loss from Mining
While demand for mined materials is still booming, the landscape is beginning to shift. For example, increased uptake of renewable energy and electric vehicles will require phasing out coal while also quadrupling the demand for critical minerals by 2040. This transition opens an opportunity to move away from past practices and minimize environmental damage from mining, including by following the “forest-smart mining” framework developed by the World Bank. This framework allows for a consultative process for reducing the impact of mining on forests.
We also identified additional opportunities to empower forest defenders and to manage demand for mined materials.
Protecting Forests and People
Reducing forest loss from mining while protecting the rights and economic benefits of vulnerable communities is a complex task, and current laws often offer poor protections for Indigenous Peoples and their livelihoods. To protect forests and people:
Demand Management
Reducing demand through resource efficiency measures can relieve the burden on the primary mineral supply, thereby limiting some of the negative impacts of mining. Demand management can include:
- Designing systems and products that have lower demand for critical minerals. For example, battery innovation has already reduced cobalt demand projections by 50%.
- Extending the use life of products and components, such as through durable product design, maintenance and repair, and reducing the need for new products.
- Recycling materials. The Energy Transition Commission expects recycling will meet over half of the demand of some minerals by 2050.
Responsible Mining
While there are many voluntary standards to support responsible mining, there is little evidence that the mining sector has improved as a result. But governments and the private sector can promote responsible mining in several ways:
- Governments can enact stringent regulatory policies to create stronger regulations for demand-side markets. For example, the recent EU deforestation regulation requires that a list of commodities sold in the region are free from deforestation in their supply chains. Similarly, the EU Critical Raw Materials Act and the U.S. Minerals Security Partnership intend to require a sustainable supply of mined materials, though they do not explicitly call for traceability or for deforestation-free supply chains.
- Governments in countries where mining is occurring can ensure they have the capacity to develop and enforce relevant laws (for example, in Argentina, Australia, Chile and the S.).
- Downstream purchasers like car companies or battery manufacturers can influence supply chains by requiring proof of responsible mining practices, such as through independent assurance against mining standards like IRMA, TSM, ICMM Mining Principles and CopperMark. This requires enhancing traceability, accountability and audits for mineral supply chain actors through policy enforcement.
Demand for minerals will inevitably continue to increase in the coming years, but deforestation doesn’t have to follow it.
About The Data
For this analysis, we combined three different global mining datasets into a single layer based on a union — Maus et al. (2022), Tang et al. (2023) and Dethier et al. (2023). Maus et al. (2022) included mining sites up to and including 2019; Tang et al. (2023) and Detheir et al. (2023) included mining sites up to and including 2020. It is possible that some of the mining-related deforestation that occurred before 2017 remains unrecorded.
Mining activities swiftly shift from one location to another, and vegetation typically returns in 2 to 3 years, making it difficult to identify mining that happened earlier in the time series. In addition, regions and countries with minimal reporting of mining activities are likely underrepresented in the data.
Our analysis includes only inactive and active mining sites, excluding mining sites under concession or future projected mining sites. Therefore, our estimates of the impacts of mining on Indigenous Peoples and local communities, for example, are likely conservative. Although in this article we distinguish between large-scale and small-scale artisanal mining, our data analysis does not differentiate between the two due to input data limitations.
This analysis also shows the association between tree cover loss and mining activity (not causation). We did not algorithmically attribute drivers of tree cover loss annually. Alternatively, we assigned tree cover loss and emissions to mining based on an intersection between the combined map of global mining and tree cover loss maps from Hansen et al. 2013, accessed via Global Forest Watch, and emissions maps from Harris et al. 2021, updated through 2020.
Forests are defined as having greater than 30% canopy cover in 2000 based on Hansen et al. 2013. Humid tropical primary forest locations are from Turubanova et al. 2018 and defined as “mature natural humid tropical forest cover that has not been completely cleared and regrown in recent history.”
Maps of Indigenous Peoples’ and local community lands are from LandMark, and maps of protected areas are from the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA). From WDPA we include only “strictly protected” areas (IUCN Categories Ia, Ib, or II) and areas with “some form of legal protection” (IUCN Categories III, IV, V, VI, Not Reported, Not Assigned, Not Applicable).
