<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Mining risk assessment at the territory scale: development of a tool tested on the example of gold mining in French Guiana

Ottone Scammacca

► To cite this version:

Ottone Scammacca. Mining risk assessment at the territory scale: development of a tool tested on the example of gold mining in French Guiana. Ecosystems. Université de Lorraine, 2020. English.

NNT: 2020LORR0281. tel-03225840v2

HAL Id: tel-03225840

https://hal.science/tel-03225840v2

Submitted on 3 Jun 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
Université de Lorraine

École doctorale Sciences et Ingénierie des Ressources Naturelles

Laboratoire GeoRessources

Laboratoire d'Excellence « Ressources21 »

## THÈSE DE DOCTORAT

Présentée et soutenue publiquement pour l'obtention du titre de

Docteur de l'Université de Lorraine en « Géosciences »

# Mining risk assessment at the territory scale: development of a tool tested on the example of gold mining in French Guiana

L'analyse des risques des projets miniers à l'échelle territoriale : développement d'un outil d'aide à la décision testé sur le cas de l'exploitation aurifère en Guyane française

par Ottone SCAMMACCA

soutenue le 3 décembre 2020

Devant le jury composé de :

<table><tr><td>Claire CÔTE</td><td>Associate Professor, University of Queensland (SMI)</td><td>Rapportrice</td></tr><tr><td>Franck MARLE</td><td>Professeur, CentraleSupélec (LGI)</td><td>Rapporteur</td></tr><tr><td>Anne-Sylvie ANDRÉ- MAYER</td><td>Professeure, Université de Lorraine (GeoRessources)</td><td>Examinatrice</td></tr><tr><td>Jean-Louis MOREL</td><td>Professeur émérite, Université de Lorraine (LSE)</td><td>Examinateur</td></tr><tr><td>Nicolas ROLLO</td><td>Maître de conférences, Université de Nantes (LETG)</td><td>Examinateur</td></tr><tr><td>Magali ROSSI</td><td>Maître de conférences, Université Savoie Mont Blanc (Edytem)</td><td>Examinatrice</td></tr><tr><td>Sylvain CAURLA</td><td>Ingénieur de recherche, INRAE Nancy - AgroParisTech (BETA)</td><td>Invité</td></tr><tr><td>Yann GUNZBURGER</td><td>Professeur, Université de Lorraine (GeoRessources)</td><td>Directeur de thèse</td></tr><tr><td>Rasool MEHDIZADEH</td><td>Maître de conférences, Université de Lorraine (GeoRessources)</td><td>Co-directeur de thèse</td></tr></table>
Institutional acknowledgments

This thesis (2017-2020) has been realized entirely at the laboratory **GeoRessources**
(UMR7359), Université de Lorraine – CNRS (http://georessources.univ-lorraine.fr). The work
was funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR) through the national program
“Investissements d'avenir” (ANR-10-LABX-21-01/LABEX RESSOURCES21) and the Laboratoire
d'Excellence (LabEx) **Ressources 21** (https://ressources21.univ-lorraine.fr).
Remerciements

Et voilà, trois ans écoulés à la fois rapides comme des éclairs et lents comme une tortue fatiguée. Le temps d'une thèse ! Le temps, quand même, de vraiment beaucoup de choses, beaucoup d'émotions, beaucoup d'amis et de connaissances, vieilles et nouvelles, beaucoup d'expériences, en solo ou en compagnie, beaucoup de « dernières lignes droites », beaucoup de tout ! Et c'est vrai que, comme tout, la thèse est une expérience de vie qui aide un peu à la connaissance de soi...On devient tellement habitués à remettre tout en question et tout analyser pendant trois ans, jour par jour, qu'on risque de faire pareil avec nous-mêmes, et plonger dans des abysses débordants de réflexions et pensées.

Ces années ont été extrêmement enrichissantes sur plusieurs aspects, me permettant de chercher mais aussi découvrir et de me découvrir. J'ai eu la chance de travailler sur un sujet très large et foisonnant qui m'a lié à la Guyane d'une façon inattendue et extrêmement forte. Mais tout ce bagage infini d'expériences et de vécu, je le dois à toutes les personnes rencontrées. L'être humain est comme une éponge qui, tout en faisant épreuve d'un certain esprit critique, absorbe et se façonne du vécu, du bien et du mal de tous ceux qui croisent ou partagent une partie de son chemin.

C'est pour cette raison que je tiens à remercier toutes les personnes rencontrées au fil de ces trois ans qui m'ont toutes donné des grandes ou petits briques pour continuer à me construire. Je n'ai pas réussi, cause temps et émotions, à le faire à la fin de ma soutenance et alors je vais essayer de vous remercier un/e par un/e ici. Car cette thèse n'est pas à moi mais à tous ceux qui m'ont permis d'y arriver. (Et vive les longs pavés!).

Tout d'abord, merci à Claire Côte, Frank Marle, Jean-Louis Morel, Anne-Sylvie André-Mayer, Nicolas Rollo, Magali Rossi et Sylvain Caurla d'avoir pris part à l'évaluation de ces trois ans de travail. Merci d'avoir pris le temps de me lire et de m'écouter, en espérant avoir répondu à toutes vos attentes.

Merci à toutes les personnes qui ont suivi, contribué et supporté le travail de ces trois ans, notamment en Guyane. Merci à la Collectivité Territoriale de la Guyane, en particulier au Pôle Technique et Minier, avec Thibaut Brouard et Mathieu Champion. Merci beaucoup pour votre présence continue pendant l'entièreté de la thèse, pour votre aide et le support. Je chéris énormément notre mission sur le terrain avec Pascal (merci beaucoup Pascal !). Merci aussi à Marie Chaix, Loïc Buzaré et Bénédicte Maximin. Merci beaucoup à l'Office National des Forêts, en particulier à Alain Coppel, Alexandre David, Clément Coignard, Olivier Brunaux et Jean-Luc Sibille. Merci à l'Office de l'Eau et en particulier à Marjorie Gallay. Merci de toute ton aide, tes conseils et ton support.

Merci à Damien Brélivet et à l'Agence Régionale de Santé pour la très grande disponibilité à plusieurs reprises. Merci à l'Université de Guyane, Marianne Palisse et à la Licence VALORESS.
J'ai été honoré de pouvoir présenter mes travaux pendant une séance de cours (Arnauld, tu seras remercié plus tard..quand même !).

Merci au BRGM, en particulier à Marine Cabidoche et Laure Verneyre. Merci aussi à la DEAL, à Guy Faoucher et Adrien Ortelli pour le temps accordé et les discussions passionnantes. Merci à Rémi Galin et Diana Guillon pour les nombreux échanges eus et pour votre temps. Merci à Julien Cambou et Denis Lenganey du Parc Amazonien de Guyane. Un grand merci aussi à Gustave Marceillon, Remy Aubert, Karyn Cunico-Leal, Sophie Merlindun, Mouna Zayer du Service Urbanisme de la Mairie de Mana : votre aide et support ont été fondamentaux pour nous. Merci à Juliette Guirado pour sa gentillesse et pour le court échange téléphonique. Merci à Jules Queguiner de la Mairie de Saint Laurent du Maroni pour les informations concernant les PLU de la commune. Merci beaucoup à l'IRD, à Michel Brossard et à Stéphane Calmant pour votre intérêt dans mes recherches. Merci à Philippe Poggi de la DRRT Guyane, Didier Lemoine, Sébastien Linarès et Damien Ripert de la Préfecture pour le temps accordé et les belles discussions eues. Merci aussi beaucoup à Martial Tombu, à Antoine Gardel du CNRS et Laurent Kelle de WWF France pour leur disponibilité.

Merci à la Fédération Guyane Nature Environnement, à la disponibilité de certains membres du collectif Or de Question rencontrés pendant ces trois ans, merci à Marie Fleury, Michel Dubouillé et Marine Calmet. Merci à Jeunesse Autochtone de Guyane et à Christophe Pierre pour les quelques échanges eus.

Un très grand merci à Alexandre Cailleau et à la Compagnie Minière Espérance-Société Minière Saint-Elie. Merci beaucoup pour l'accueil, la visite des sites mais surtout merci pour tous les conseils, les échanges et la bienveillance à mon égard au long de ces trois ans. Un grand bonjour à Nico et à sa femme (ses plats..ohlala, j'en rêve encore !). Merci à Didier Tamagno et Pierre Gibert de nous avoir accueilli sur leur site de Dieu Merci et de nous avoir fourni des nombreuses informations essentielles pour bien mener notre travail et de leur grande disponibilité. Merci beaucoup à Pascal et à la Société Al Maktoum de m'avoir permis de visiter leur site alluvionnaire : ça a été une journée inoubliable pour moi, couronnée par une superbe soirée-diner en compagnie !

Merci à Remi Pernod et Robin Tschofenr de Amazon Gold de nous avoir accueilli sur leur site pendant toute la journée et des informations transmises. Merci beaucoup à Elodie et Julie Brunstein pour la grande disponibilité et pour leur travail extrêmement important que vous réalisez. Merci à Pierre Rostan pour tous nos échanges et pour vos éclairages extrêmement intéressants sur la gestion des résidus et la construction de digues et de barranques. Merci à Philippe Matheus de la Compagnie Minière Boulanger pour sa disponibilité. Merci aussi à Monique Raymond de lamgold et à Alex Guez, Pierre Paris, Jean-François Orru, Chantal Roy et Marie-Françoise Bahloul de la Compagnie Minière Montagne d'Or pour la très grande disponibilité et l'opportunité de pouvoir échanger avec vous.

Je souhaite remercier beaucoup aussi les membres de mon comité de suivi. Arnauld, merci beaucoup pour ton amitié, pour toutes nos discussions sur plein de sujets variés, nos quelques petits verres à Cayenne, ton aide et ton support sur beaucoup d'aspects liés à la thèse et pas
que ! Je crois et j'espère que nous aurons l'occasion de continuer à rester liés entre la Métropole, La Guyane mais aussi Rome, que je sais tu chéris (au moins) un tout petit peu ! Michel, merci beaucoup de ta présence et des apports, des idées stimulantes que tu as pu apporter et sur lesquelles nous avons pu réfléchir, discuter et échanger ou se critiquer. Merci aussi pour la richesse des sujets variés (macrocosme !), la gentillesse et grande disponibilité que t'as pu avoir toujours à mon égard. Jean-Alain, je suis très content de t'avoir eu dans le comité et je chéris beaucoup aussi notre petit séjour canadien. Tu passeras le bonjour à ton fils de ma part aussi ! Merci beaucoup pour tout !

À vous tous je tiens à faire mes plus grands remerciements pour m'avoir permis de faire ce travail que j'espère réponde à toutes vos attentes ! En tout cas, il y a des très nombreuses personnes qui ne se sont pas sauvées de moi autant que vous.

Ce doctorat s'est fait grâce à mes encadrants, Yann et Rasool avec lesquels on a appris à se connaitre le long de ces trois ans. Ça n'a pas été toujours facile, en plus cette dernière année de distances, quarantaines et confinements est bien particulière. Néanmoins, ils ont pu m'accompagner, me guider, se confronter à mon entêtement (et moi a leurs), entre un verre au bar et un dans l'avion. Nous avons partagé des nombreuses missions, voyages, dans des lieux très différents, en vivant des expériences passionnantes. Nous avons eu des maitres hominides qui nous ont appris à ouvrir des noix de coco à mains nues (à mains nues !!!), nous sommes allés voir les caïmans à Kaw et bien d'autres expériences. Yann, merci beaucoup de ton amitié, nos partages musicaux – il faudra qu'on rattrape quelques concerts, d'ailleurs – et les conseils de lectures. Merci aussi de nos discussions et de nos pipelettes mentales sur tel ou tel autre aspect de thèse et de vie. Tu es une très bonne personne et je suis bien content que tu aies pu être mon directeur de thèse. Rasool, merci beaucoup pour tout le soutien. On peut dire que tu as commencé ce doctorat avec moi en débutant une bien plus importante aventure, celle de père, et je suis honoré d'avoir pu rencontrer ton petit Navid et Katia (d'ailleurs, j'ai hâte de le revoir bien grandi !). Merci pour toutes nos discussions devant ton tableau, la construction et la critique d'idées. Merci aussi d'avoir essayé de calmer toujours toute engueulade (amicale bien sûr !) entre moi et Yann (« eeehhm, ohlala regardez le ciel est trop beau ! »). Merci de m'avoir initié au persan et de m'avoir accueilli chez toi à Ispahan dans ce pays magique. Merci de m'avoir fait connaitre plein de personnes là-bas (avec lesquels nous sommes toujours en contact) et ta superbe famille. On continuera certainement nos discussions sur le setar, sur l'histoire de la Perse et bien d'autres !

Il y aurait 10 000 choses en plus à dire, mais on les gardera pour nous (tout ne doit pas être écrit ici ! ;)). Merci beaucoup pour tout et tout ce qui ne résume pas à quelques lignes. On a été une belle team !

Merci aussi à ma deuxième maison pendant ces trois ans. Le beau laboratoire GeoRessources, plus en particulier sa « filiale » à l'École des Mines, dans le bâtiment recherche, oui le bâtiment avec les murs rouge-assassin perturbant, et oui l'équipe poétiquement appelée GOR. Blague à part, merci à tous pour l'accueil, le partage de beaux moments, nos soirées-diners et nos
soutiens réciproques. Tout d'abord, merci beaucoup Marie, tu as été mon grand petit refuge de confidences. Merci de m'avoir supporté comme amie, collègue et comme psychologue (!). Toi aussi, tu commences la plus belle des aventures, avec la petite Adèle qu'on espère voir bientôt, avec son beau vieux papa Geremia. Olivier, un grand merci pour tout ton support et ta présence pendant ces années. Je me souviendrai beaucoup de notre beau voyage en Guyane...et de ce lit double... Marianne, toi aussi, tu m'as accompagné dans mes quelques délires et folies ! Merci pour tout, tes conseils, nos discussions-cailloux, etc. Un de plus beaux souvenir de ces trois ans (et pas que !) sera sûrement le concert de Ian Paice qu'on a partagé chez Paulette. Magique !!!

Agnès, tu sais aussi pour tout ce que je te dois. Merci pour ton soutien et ton amitié. Merci pour tes conseils, nos confidences et nos échanges sportifs. On se verra bientôt à Berycham !
Merci aussi Sylvain, nous nous sommes connus à Nantes, et bieeen ravi de t'avoir retrouvé à Nancy ! Tout le meilleur courage pour ton aventure bordelaise.

Jana, tu sais aussi que quelques lignes ne suffisent pas. Tu as été et tu restes toujours avec Marie, une grande colonne portante de l'équipe et de la vie en son sein. Merci de tous nos échanges, portant littéralement sur tout, merci de ton soutien, du début d'une très belle amitié et merci de m'avoir donné l'occasion de te soutenir, j'espère, assez (en vrai, on s'en fiche de tout ça...merci pour chocolat et biscuits !). Le même vaut pour Elio et Ever, mes petites fleurs du R114. On a respiré le même air, on s'est supportés les uns les autres et ... et basta, ce qui se passe en R114, restes en R114 (Un grand bisou à Maria, Ever !).

Mimi, tu fais partie du trio-pilier avec Jana et Marie comme tu t'en doutes. Merci de tout le soutien. Vous trois nous avez toujours gâtés et soutenus, nous les doctorants et tous les autres membres de l'équipe ! On attend bien ton foufou !!! Marine, c'est bien normal qu'une petite partie te soit dédiée aussi. Tu es restée au labo pendant quelques mois. Malheureusement, la chance nous a fait tomber dessus une pandémie mondiale...mais je suis très heureux de t'avoir connu si bien en si peu de temps. Nous continuerons de nous écrire comme d'habitude et tu me tiendras au courant de ce que tu deviens !

Dalija, nous avons commencé ensemble la thèse et finalement je crois qu'on a appris à se connaitre beaucoup plus et mieux dans cette dernière année, encore plus qu'avant. Je suis très content qu'on ait partagé le même sort pendant ces années de thèses en parallèle. Et je suis bien content que maintenant tu puisses partager le quotidien de ton bureau avec Émeline. Émeline, je t'ai toujours dit que je t'apprécie beaucoup et combien j'aime bien nos échanges socio-politiques...et pas que !!! Merci Emilio, t'es un grand pote et une belle personne. Tu vas cartonner ton doctorat, j'en suis sûr. Guillaume et Laura aussi, je suis très content de ne vous avoir pas ratés. Vous allez former une très belle équipe au labo (je ne parle pas des vieux là !).
Merci aussi au Sénat, Christian et Bernard (oui je vous appelle le Sénat !). Merci pour tous nos débats et pour tous vos conseils chargés d'expérience !

Merci aux autres membres de GéoRessources, Madame la Directrice Anne-Sylvie, Monsieur le Directeur Émérite, Jacques pour un petit voyage dans la géologie lorraine. Merci Philippe Marion pour les échanges : j'ai été très heureux de passer du temps avec vous pour notre article. Et un grand merci à tous les autres. La distance des équipes de GeoRessources ont
contraint nos rapports au quotidien, mais j'ai été toujours heureux de vous voir, discuter et
échanger avec vous lors des nombreuses occasions de rassemblement de tous les membres du
labo. Et en plus, maintenant Jacques a migré à ARTEM, ce qui a facilité que je puisse le souler
au moins pendant mes derniers mois de thèse et rattraper le retard !

Merci à toute l'équipe INERIS. Merci à Virginie, Roxane, Nathalie, Nicolas et Francesca pour nos pauses-clope, nos échanges très très profonds et tout le reste. Merci Benoit, merci Régis, merci Mountaka, Catherine, Marwan, Vincent, Cyrille, Isabelle, Alice, Jannès, Franz, Emmanuelle, Stella. Un merci tout particulier à Alain, mon voisin et mentor d'escalade. J'espère que tu arriveras à t'améliorer un peu à grimper. Comme ça peut être un jour tu me surpasseras !

Un grand merci à l'Ecole des Mines, à Christine Fradet, Abdel, Laure, Thierry et tous ceux que
j'ai pu croiser pendant ce chemin !

Merci à tous pour les rires et les sourires !

Merci à toutes les personnes que j'ai rencontrées au fil de ces années. Merci Anne (Blanchart) pour ton amitié, ta disponibilité et pour nos repas riches en discussions passionnantes et rires. Merci à Nicolas Rollo, pour ton amitié, ton soutien et tes conseils pendant ces trois ans. Merci à Claire Froger, Thierry Lebeau, Béatrice Bechet et toutes les autres belles personnes que j'ai pu rencontrer à Nantes pendant la formation POLLUSOLS. Merci à Guillaume Echevarria pour nos discussions sur l'agromine et la phytoremediation. Merci à Christian Franck pour sa grande disponibilité et pour tous les passionnants et enrichissants échanges sur les digues minières. Merci aussi Denis Breysse pour tous vos précieux conseils et merci à toute l'équipe à Talence de m'avoir accueilli pour quelques jours en 2018. Merci à Jean-Alain à nouveau, Magali Rossi, Marie Forget, Kristina Bergeron et à toutes les autres personnes avec lesquelles nous avons pu partager la courte période à Vancouver mais aussi à Chambery. Merci à Marie-Odile Simonnot, pour nos échanges et pour m'avoir permis de participer à des projets extrêmement intéressants. Merci Aurore Stéphant pour nos échanges passionnants sur la mine et sur SystExt. Merci à Éleonore Lèbre de tes conseils ; j'espère que nous aurons l'occasion de garder contact. Thank you, Stephen Northey, for the continuous exchanges concerning your incredible researches. Thank you very much Scott Ferson and Carolina Morais, for the interesting exchanges and for the great opportunity to recently present my works for the Risk Institute of the Liverpool University and for the wonderful project IMAWARE.

Un merci tout particulier aussi à David Montagne et Philippe Baveye, deux grands mentors pour moi à qui je sens devoir beaucoup et qui m'ont initié à la réflexion scientifique. Merci beaucoup de votre présence pendant ces trois ans. Merci de vos conseils, de votre soutien moral et professionnel, votre bienveillance et merci de votre amitié. (David, un jour on arrivera à voir la rueketa avec Charlotte !). Merci David de m'avoir fait confiance pour cet après thèse.
Un merci particulier aussi aux agents de l'ONFI et à Pierre-Emmanuel Leclercq pour sa gentillesse et disponibilité, et pour m'avoir aidé à réfléchir sur ce que je souhaite faire dans les prochaines années de ma vie. Malgré courts, nos échanges m'ont beaucoup fait songer et j'espère vraiment qu'un jour je pourrai contribuer à vos activités.

Merci à tous les amis nancéens (la place Stan, la place Stan, la place Stan !)! Merci à Mélanie, tu as été probablement ma toute première amie ici et ça me manque de me faire tabasser un peu sur le ring ! Merci à Veronica, Jennifer, Clémence, Félix pour tout votre soutien ! Merci à mon big mec Franck et à Marion. Vous êtes parmi mes plus proches ici à Nancy et je vous remercie de nos soirées, nos discussions philosophiques en partageant nos angoisses et nos folies. On se fera bientôt une bonne soirée d'épanouissement ! Franck, tout particulièrement, merci pour tous les coups que tu m'as filés et pour tous ceux que t'as encaissés ! Tu vas me manquer comme sparring partner mec ! S'il n'y avait pas eu de Punch ici à Nancy aussi je me serais senti bien perdu ! Merci Sabrina, Anne-Laure, Valérie, Momo, Cyril (quand même !!!), PF, Chloé, Cynthia. Un merci très particulier aussi à ma Soso Romain : tu es une grande grande amie de confiance, une personne superbe et je t'aime tout fort. Merci aussi à mes deux petites voisines, Nathalie et Maela, trop dommage que ce fut si court notre voisinage ! Mais rien n'est fini ! Merci aussi Meryem, trop dommage qu'on n'en ait pas profité plus avant ton départ pour Lyon !!!

Dommage que cette période n'ait pas permis de profiter un peu plus de Nancy et de vous tous. Mais il ne sera jamais trop tard !

Un grand grand merci aux amis guyanais. Tout d'abord, un grand merci à ma Vava. Tu bouges tout le temps et tu sais que je te hais (d'envie) pour ça mais je suis heureux de t'avoir trouvée en Guyane au bon moment. Merci à toute la coloc Morpho. Merci, Laetitia, Moustaki, Thibaut, Julien et tous les autres.

Merci à Thibaut ! Je me permets de te mettre ici, car pour moi c'est le cas. Merci merci de tout le temps que tu m'as dédié mais aussi à nos quelques soirées que j'ai passées avec grand plaisir, en espérant qu'il y en aura bien d'autres ! Merci aussi Manou, j'ai été ravi de te voir resplendissante en Guyane et tu sais combien j'apprécie tout ce que tu fais avec grand effort et pas sans difficultés. J'étais trop content de passer une soirée avec toi à Kaw et connaitre ton copain !

Un grand grand merci tout particulier à mon Élo, très belle petite d'or découverte en Guyane, à nos petites aventures, à notre soirée takitaki (avec Vale d'ailleurs) et à tous les autres moments et ceux qu'on aurait pu avoir (et qu'on aura sûrement un jour !). De toute façon, on se verra bientôt, j'y crois ! Merci à Clem aussi, j'ai été très heureux de te connaitre ma petite Blanche Gardin ! ;) Merci beaucoup à toute la coloc Remire, Simon, Anna-Lou, Anne, Max et tous les autres. Merci toujours pour les bons moments, courts mais intenses !

Je ne suis déjà pas une personne super facile à vivre en général peut être, et pendant la thèse disons que cela a touché tout particulièrement aussi mes plus proches au quotidien aussi. Merci
de tout mon cœur Chacha, Mimi. Il n'y a besoin de rien de plus, car vous savez tout. Merci Claire et Hugo (tu deviendras un grand enseignant !), Carlotta, Hamza, Momo, Aliénor, Gianmarco, Graziano, Ophélie pour le grand grand grand soutien de ces années. Merci beaucoup de m'avoir supporté avec patience. Claire, Hugo, il faudra se mettre sur notre projet ! Équipe Géo ne lâche rien ! Carlotta, avec toi on a découvert la Lorraine ... Et la place Stan ! Merci Claire mabiche, Kevin, Zozo, Marion, Adrien, Adèle, Freddy, Amir. Merci Léna pour tout. J'espère que ta vie de montagne te sourit ! Merci beaucoup aussi à Antoine et Louise qui ont su me conseiller pendant un moment un peu particulier. On n'oublie pas et j'ai apprécié vraiment beaucoup! Merci aussi à Polo, Camille, Margaux, Chloé, Florian, PG, Pauline, Jeremy, Alex, Faustine, Adi et à toute l'équipe Versaillaise. Un merci particulier aussi à Chabou qui est quand même rentrée dans le vif de la thèse !!! On aura nos petits noms associés au moins sur un truc quand même !

Merci RomRom et Lisa pour votre soutien, votre amitié et vos conseils qui m'ont beaucoup aidé et soutenu. Lisa, tu as été très importante pour moi et t'en as subi aussi, surtout au début de ma thèse et tu le sais !

Merci à vous tous pour tous les sourires, les rires, les pleurs, les discussions sérieuses, profondes ou superficielles, les blabla inutiles toujours utiles, le verre de trop, le verre de moins.

Grazie a casa mia, tra Roma e Napoli. Grazie ai miei amori e alla mia grande famiglia. La mia Caro, Sofi, Cri, Edo, Pietro, Cle, Denni, Lupo, Asca, Livia, Eleonora, Giulia, Marta, Miri, Flaminia, Olga, Filippo, Laura, Giovi, Mewi, Enrico, Luchino, Sofi, Beniamino, Iaia, Andrea e alla nuova generazione di pargoli. Grazie a Peppino, Bavarella, Nachina, Puppu, Luchino, Cello, Gio e tutti gli altri. Servirebbero altre 100 pagine per elencarvi tutti, ringraziarvi e per esprimervi la mia gratitudine quotidiana di supporto e sopportazion ! Ed anche se lontani geograficamente, mi siete sempre stati vicino senza se e senza ma, da una vita di amicizia.

Merci à Marcel, Sophie, Hadrien et Cyrielle Fauré. Merci de m'avoir invité dans votre maison depuis 7 ans désormais. Merci de tous vos conseils, votre bienveillance et votre soutien. Ce doctorat est pour vous aussi !

Grazie a mia nonna che nonostante i suoi (49) anni é riuscita sempre a tirarmi su e a darmi i veri consigli old-school che noi ci sogniamo ! Grazie a mio nonno e ai miei nonni perché sono sempre qua. Grazie a Luciana, che sta con me da quando avevo gli occhi ancora chiusi ! Grazie a moi zio Andrea per il supporto sempre e in tutto. Grazie a zia Filena, zio Filippo e zio Stefano. Grazie a tutti i cugini e (ormai)..pure i nipoti ! Grazie anche zio Blasco perché siamo tra i pochi Scammacca ad aver scelto la strada della ricerca. Grazie à Mario ed agli altri cugini in Trinacria. Ci vedremo presto !

Per ultimi, ma sicuramente i primi per ordine di importanza, ai miei genitori ed a mia sorella Irenea perché se sono qui lo devo almeno per ¾ a loro (datemi almeno ¼ di merito). Grazie per
il supporto sempre e comunque e perché non é possibile ringraziare chi ti mette al mondo insegnandoti a camminaré né chi ti rompe le scatole ...sempre da quando al mondo sei stato messo. Questo dottorato é soprattutto per voi ma solo perché vi appartiene già. Avete dato tutto e continuate a farlo dopo 28 anni di sopportazione (perché ho preso dai migliori, no ?!).

Enfin, à Adeline. Elle a certainement subi tout l' « insupportabilité » de mon être (ça pourrait être un nouveau livre de Kundera) pendant trois ans. Pourtant, bien que son martyre ait commencé en 2013 (quand même !) elle a toujours étée là, jour par jour, à me soutenir avec amour et patience, à me conseiller, me calmer et me motiver, profiter des beaux moments. Tout le monde te dit « aaah comment tu fais à le supporter, t'es une sainte ! ». Même ma mère le dit ! Et ben, ils ont tous raison, je crois. Je ne le dis pas, mais tu l'es vraiment avec toutes tes qualités et ta grande force (il en faut quand même !).

Je ne peux pas te dédier ce doctorat car il t'appartient déjà, pour tous les sacrifices que tu as su faire avec moi, pour tout ce qu'on a partagé et pour continuer à me tolérer avec douceur, tendresse, amour et patience.

À vous tous, et pas que, un grand MERCI pour avoir été, être et rester avec moi avec bienveillance, patience et amour.
# List of publications

## Scientific papers

**Scammacca** Ottone, Gunzburger Yann, Mehdizadeh Rasool, Gold mining in French Guiana: a multi-criteria classification of mining projects for risk assessment at the territory scale, The Extractive Industry and Society, 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2020.06.020

## Conference papers

**Scammacca** Ottone, Gunzburger Yann, Mehdizadeh Rasool, Dynamic, Multi-Perspective and Multi-Scale Risk Assessment of Mining Projects under Tropical Climate, in both their Geoscientific and Social Dimension, June 2018, RFG 2018 - Resources for Future GenerationsAt: Vancouver, BC, CANADA.

Sauer Lorenzo, Robert Louis-Guilhem, **Scammacca** Ottone, Mehdizadeh Rasool, Gunzburger Yann, Development of a method to assess the susceptibility of tailings dams' failure due to overtopping, Proceedings of the 29th European Safety and Reliability Conference, Hannover, 2019

**Scammacca** Ottone, Mehdizadeh Rasool, Gnzburger Yann, An integrated methodology for risk assessment of mining projects at different spatial scales, Proceedings of the 29th European Safety and Reliability Conference, Hannover, 2019

## Others

**Scammacca** Ottone, Gunzburger Yann, Mehdizadeh Rasool, Classification multicritère des exploitations aurifères en Guyane pour l'analyse des risques et des opportunités à l'échelle territoriale, Révue Géologues, Les Guyanes (Guyane Française, Suriname, Guyana), GEOL206, Septembre 2020.

**Scammacca** Ottone, Marion Philippe, Pourquoi utilise-t-on du cyanure pour extraire de l'or?, The Conversation France, publié le 21 octobre 2019, https://theconversation.com/pourquoi-utilise-t-on-du-cyanure-pour-extraire-lor-122670
Table of Contents

<table><tr><td>Glossary</td><td>XV</td></tr><tr><td>Acronyms</td><td>XVII</td></tr><tr><td>General introduction</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Part I – General context and objectives of the thesis</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 1. Mining, territory and risks</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>1. The mining system</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>2. Mining performances at the territory level: a call for sustainability in the mining sector</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>3. Risks associated with mining projects</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>4. Existing methods for risk assessment in the mining sector and their gaps</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>37</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 2. Objectives of the thesis and development of a methodology via the application on a case-study</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>1. Our approach and objectives of the study</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>2. Theoretical development of the methodological framework</td><td>41</td></tr><tr><td>3. Criteria used for the selection of a case-study</td><td>51</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Part II – Application on gold mining in French Guiana: definition of the systems and development of the scenarios</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 3. The territory system: French Guiana and Mana river basin</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>1. General presentation of French Guiana and its specificities</td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td>2. Selection of the spatial scale: Mana river basin</td><td>60</td></tr><tr><td>3. Actors considered and temporal dimension of the application</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>68</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 4. The mine system: overview and classification of gold mining in FG</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>1. Overview of gold mining across the world</td><td>69</td></tr><tr><td>2. Gold mining in the Guiana Shield</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>3. Gold mining in French Guiana</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>4. Gold mining in the Mana RB</td><td>85</td></tr><tr><td>5. Classification of gold mines and development of standardized project-types</td><td>86</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>99</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 5. Development of the Territorial Mining scenarios (TMS)</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>1. Territorial objectives and Territorial Mining Scenarios (TMS)</td><td>101</td></tr><tr><td>2. Fictional localization of the gold mining projects</td><td>103</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>106</td></tr><tr><td>Chapter 6. Risk identification and risk scenarios development</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>1. Risk identification for each gold mine-type in French Guiana</td><td>107</td></tr><tr><td>2. Accidental Risk scenario (RSa) development</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>3. Ordinary Risk scenario (RSo) development</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><td>Conclusion</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>Part III – Application on gold mining in French Guiana: assessment of the risk scenarios and TMS scoring</td><td>127</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Chapter 7. Assessment of the accidental Risk Scenario (RSa)</strong></td>
      <td><strong>129</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1. Assessment of dam failure consequences through vulnerability indicators</td>
      <td>130</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2. Calculation of the flooded area</td>
      <td>135</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3. Mapping socio-ecological vulnerability to flooding</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4. Estimation of the consequence scores of the RSa</td>
      <td>149</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5. Probability assessment and risk estimation</td>
      <td>152</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>6. Calculation of the RSa risk score for each TMS</td>
      <td>154</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>7. Alternative estimation of the RSa score for each TMS</td>
      <td>155</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conclusion</td>
      <td>157</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Chapter 8. Assessment of the ordinary risk scenario (RSo)</strong></td>
      <td><strong>159</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1. Evaluation of the positive and negative consequences for each TMS</td>
      <td>159</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2. Aggregation of the risks and final score for each territorial mining scenario (TMS)</td>
      <td>163</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1. Aggregation of the positive and negative consequences</td>
      <td>163</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.2. Aggregation of positive and negative consequences and final score</td>
      <td>164</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conclusion</td>
      <td>165</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Chapter 9. Global risk score of the territorial mining scenarios and multi-actor weighting</strong></td>
      <td><strong>167</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1. Assessment of the global risk score of each TMS</td>
      <td>167</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2. Multi-actor assessment of the relative importance of each consequence</td>
      <td>169</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conclusion</td>
      <td>174</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Part IV – Discussion of the approach proposed in this study and its application</strong></td>
      <td><strong>175</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Chapter 10. Discussion on the application of our approach to the French Guiana gold mining sector</strong></td>
      <td><strong>177</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1. The influence of system definition on the final scores</td>
      <td>177</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2. The influence of the chosen territorial mining scenarios on the results</td>
      <td>184</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3. Rapidity and reliability of the RSa and RSo scores assessment</td>
      <td>188</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4. Final TMS scores and weighting coefficients</td>
      <td>196</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5. Comparison of the territorial scenarios: which scenario is the “best”?</td>
      <td>201</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Conclusion and perspectives for the application of our approach in FG gold mining sector</td>
      <td>202</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Chapter 11. Advantages, limits, perspectives of our approach and concluding remarks</strong></td>
      <td><strong>205</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1. Added value of the approach proposed in this study</td>
      <td>205</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2. Geospatial issues of the approach and its application</td>
      <td>209</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3. Future perspectives of our approach</td>
      <td>211</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>General Conclusion</strong></td>
      <td><strong>217</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Bibliographic references</strong></td>
      <td><strong>221</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Websites</strong></td>
      <td><strong>240</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Résumé étendu et continu en français</strong></td>
      <td><strong>241</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Appendices</strong></td>
      <td><strong>249</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Abstract</strong></td>
      <td><strong>291</strong></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td><strong>Résumé</strong></td>
      <td><strong>291</strong></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Glossary

<table><thead><tr><td>Term</td><td>Definition</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Accident</td><td>Failure of a system, due to unexpected conditions.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Accidental (or abnormal) conditions</td><td>Unexpected and extraordinary operating conditions of a system deviating from normal conditions and resulting in a potential failure, a malfunction</td><td>49 CFR 192.503</td></tr><tr><td>Consequence</td><td>Outcome of an event positively or negatively affecting the objectives. Initial consequences can also escalate through cascading and cumulative effects. Consequences can be direct when they occur on the short term immediately after the risk event, or indirect when they are generated by direct consequences</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008); Andreoni and Miola, 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Ecosystem service</td><td>Conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems - and the species that make them up - sustain and fulfill human life through the production of ecosystem goods the harvest and trade of which represent an important and familiar part of the human economy.</td><td>Costanza et al., (1997); Daily, (1997)</td></tr><tr><td>Failure</td><td>Event that negatively alter the achievement of the functions of a system.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Impacted Area</td><td>Geographical space that is influenced by the occurrence of a risk event.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Indicator</td><td>Variable that represent a specific quantity, a state, or interactions that are not directly accessible or may be difficult to estimate.</td><td>Kandziora et al., (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>Mining project (or "mine")</td><td>Temporary set of coordinated and controlled activities - with start and finish dates, conforming to specific requirements, including the constraints of time, cost and resources - that undertakes a process to exploit a geological deposit.</td><td>(ISO 10006, 2017); (PMI, 2004)</td></tr><tr><td>Ordinary (or normal) conditions</td><td>Operating conditions of a system that represents as closely as possible the range of performance, use, activity that can reasonably be expected.</td><td>IEC 62368-1, (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>Performance</td><td>Capability of a structure, a component or a system to perform the functions for which it was designed.</td><td>Talon and Curt (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Probability</td><td>Measure of the chance of occurrence expressed as a number between 0 and 1, where 0 is impossibility and 1 is absolute certainty. Effect of uncertainty on objectives. Risk equals the product of probability and consequences. It can be positive, when it enhances the expected objectives and negative, when it worsens them.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk</td><td>Process to combine individual risks to obtain a more complete understanding of risk.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk aggregation</td><td>Overall process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk assessment</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Risk event</td><td>Occurrence or change of a particular set of circumstance.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk management process</td><td>Systematic procedure consisting in communicating, consulting, establishing the context, identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and reviewing risk.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk perception</td><td>Stakeholder's view on a risk.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>Risk scenario</td><td>Result of a simulation that foresights some possible alternatives and future realities involving the occurrence of a series of risk events during normal (RSo) or accidental (RSa) operating conditions.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Socio-Ecological System</td><td>A system composed of biogeophysical components and human actors (individual and collective) in mutual interaction. They provide ecosystem services that satisfy societal needs and support human well-being.</td><td>Gotts et al., (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Stakeholders</td><td>Any person or organization that can affect, be affected by, or perceive themselves to be affected by a decision or activity.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr><tr><td>System</td><td>Any set of connected, interacting, interdependent processes and group of units forming an integrated whole which drives itself or is driven to achieve one or several specific goals, in a dynamic and active environment, through the performance of specific functions.</td><td>Le Moigne, (1990); Erodney (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>System component</td><td>Characteristic element part of a specific system which assures the achievement of the performances and the functions of the whole system.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>System function</td><td>Characteristic purpose of a system as well as the values provided by it.</td><td>Merriam-Webster, (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>Territorial Mining Scenario (TMS)</td><td>Result of a simulation that foresights some possible alternatives and future realities involving different land-planning strategies for the development of mining activities at the territory level.</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Territory</td><td>Integrative space of physical phenomena and human and societal relationships, a conformation of morphological characteristics and heterogeneous distribution of its resources. The territory is a Socio-Ecological System.</td><td>Simone et al., (2018)</td></tr><tr><td>Vulnerability</td><td>Intrinsic properties of something that create susceptibility to a source of risk that can lead to a consequence. See Table.</td><td>ISO 31000, (2008)</td></tr></table>
Acronyms

<table><tr><td>ASM</td><td>Artisanal and Small Scale Mining</td></tr><tr><td>BT</td><td>Bow-Tie diagram</td></tr><tr><td>DEM</td><td>Digital Elevation Model</td></tr><tr><td>EIA</td><td>Environmental Impact Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>EIS</td><td>Environmental Impact Statement</td></tr><tr><td>ES</td><td>Ecosystem Services</td></tr><tr><td>ESIA</td><td>Environmental and Social Impact Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>FG</td><td>French Guiana</td></tr><tr><td>GIS</td><td>Geographic Information Systems</td></tr><tr><td>GRI</td><td>Global Report Initiative</td></tr><tr><td>i-ASM</td><td>Illegal Artisanal and Small Scale Mining</td></tr><tr><td>LCA</td><td>Life Cycle Analysis</td></tr><tr><td>LSM</td><td>Large-scale Mining</td></tr><tr><td>MSMc</td><td>Medium-scale Mining with cyanidation</td></tr><tr><td>MSMg</td><td>Medium-scale Mining with gravimetry</td></tr><tr><td>PSM</td><td>Proactive Safety Measures</td></tr><tr><td>RB</td><td>River Basin</td></tr><tr><td>RSa</td><td>Accidental Risk Scenario</td></tr><tr><td>RSM</td><td>Reactive Safety Measures</td></tr><tr><td>RSo</td><td>Ordinary Risk Scenario</td></tr><tr><td>SD</td><td>Sustainable Development</td></tr><tr><td>SDGs</td><td>Sustainable Development Goals</td></tr><tr><td>SES</td><td>Socio-Ecological System</td></tr><tr><td>SIA</td><td>Social Impact Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>TLCA</td><td>Territorial Life Cycle Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>TMS</td><td>Territorial Mining Scenario</td></tr><tr><td>TSF</td><td>Tailings Storage Facility</td></tr></table>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
General introduction

In the current context of worldwide natural (e.g. climate change) and human (e.g.
population growth) changes, mining industries must respond to a growing demand for minerals
and metals while facing critical social and environmental challenges (Aznar-Sanchez et al.,
2019). Since socio-economic development should not compromise socio-environmental
integrity, the concept of sustainability has been introduced into mining through "the adoption
of practices (...) that result in environmental and social improvements over traditional resource
development methods, as well as negative impacts, while maintaining the health and safety of
mine workers and the interests of stakeholders and affected communities" (Gorman and
Dzombak, 2018).

Indeed, mining projects are the source of both positive (i.e. opportunities) and negative (i.e. losses) risks of different natures: social, environmental, economic. Such risks overcome the mere sphere of the mine sites themselves and affect the territories in which these activities are located. Furthermore, when opportunities are outweighed, negative outcomes of mining rebound on mining operators through sanctions or oppositions, leading to considerable entrepreneurial risks and financial losses (Bergeron et al., 2015).

Hence, mining activities should be evaluated according to the level of their positive and/or negative contributions to the socio-ecological system in which they are located. Moreover, the assessment of these contributions should focus on all the coexistent and variegated mine-types located within a given territory. For such reasons, we claim that **mining projects are a matter of land-planning rather than simple standalone industrial objects**. Fig. 1 presents the conceptual reciprocal interactions between a mine and the territory, as a socio-ecological system. Mining provides services to the human sphere but at the same time affects ecosystem services delivery and, thus, the satisfaction of the corresponding human needs.

The engagement of mining into land management relies on multiple factors of different orders. One of them concerns land-use, which means questioning on which purposes a territory is intended to be managed for and what are the potential positive or negative risks associated to such uses. For instance, what is the level of ecosystem services supply that a given land-use can guarantee for the viability of human society? As a matter of land-planning, mining is also a (geo)political key-issue, considerably tied to governance factors and global market trends. This implies the questioning of which development model(s) and future scenario(s) decision-makers, public authorities and civil society might choose for a given area (e.g. municipality, region, country) and what implications might be derived.

A wide range of tools are currently used for industrial risk assessment (Tixier et al.,
2002): such tools are designed to be performed at the mine-scale, often on one project at the
time. Also, from a regulatory point of view, socio-environmental impact statements are
required by many legislations worldwide. However, by our knowledge, no tools are specifically designed to account for the technical specificities and the variability of mining activities or for their integration into land-planning strategies at the territory level.

This PhD thesis researches how **mining activities and their specificities can be included into land-planning strategies based on their level of risks**. Whether one or more mining projects should be developed on a territory implies political answers and political objectives. This thesis has the purpose to suggest a new way to look at this question and to propose a **pluridisciplinary approach to support decision-making and land-planning through the development and comparison of potential alternative scenarios of mining development, according to their risks**.
These scenarios do not involve one single mine localized in a specific site but multiple and variegate mine types distributed in a given territory.

In order to operationalize this approach, a methodological framework has been developed based on existing methods and adapted to our purposes. The methodology has been tested on gold mining in French Guiana for a first application.

It is important to underline that this study does not propose a method to detail the level of risk (for which specific methods already exist) but to compare territorial scenarios based on their global level of risk and discuss them. The approach proposed in this study is an analytical approach to simulate and compare potential scenarios – rather than predict them – for decision-making purposes in a sector highly affected by uncertainty.

The thesis is divided in eleven chapters, grouped in four parts. **Part I** is destined to present the general context of the study. Three general concepts are behind the approach we wish to present: "mining", "territory" and "risk" as well as their interactions (**Chapter 1**). The first part addresses as well the philosophy and the objectives of this thesis, the methodological framework developed to apply our approach and finally the case-study on which a demonstrative application will be performed (i.e. gold mining in French Guiana) (**Chapter 2**).

Parts II and III reflect the structure of the methodological framework followed to apply our approach to the selected case-study. **Part II** shows the first part of this demonstrative application. The territory and mining systems are detailed (respectively in **Chapters 3 and 4**) and combined to obtain multiple territorial mining scenarios (TMS) (**Chapters 5**). The risks related the TMS are then identified and used to develop two different risk scenarios related to the normal and accidental functioning of the mining projects (**Chapter 6**).

**Parti III** presents the final steps of the application, which consist in the assessment of the different risk scenarios independently (**Chapter 7 and 8**). Finally, the results of each risk scenario are combined in order to assign a global score to each territorial mining scenario (**Chapter 9**).
**Part IV** is destined to the discussion of the proposed approach and its demonstrative application (Chapters 10-11). Advantages and gaps are addressed along with the future perspectives and challenges that future studies should consider in order to improve our approach.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 Integration of mining projects in Socio-Ecological Systems taking into consideration the reciprocal interactions between biophysical and human processes. Original, based on Bennet et al., (2009) and Berrouet et al., (2018) conceptual representations.</figcaption></figure>
# Part I – General context and objectives of the thesis
# Chapter 1. Mining, territory and risks

This first chapter aims to introduce the three key-concepts of the current thesis: mining, territory and risk assessment. The chapter reviews the unique features of a mining system and its integration in wider territorial units (i.e. a socio-ecological system). As it will be detailed, the interactions between a mining system and the territory where this activity is performed can result in different outcomes (i.e. risks) that affect both the territory and mining projects themselves. These risks and the emerging difficulties for their assessment are here described in order to underline the current need for holistic and integrative approaches of risk management applied to the mining sector at wider spatial scales for land-planning purposes.

## 1. The mining system

For the methodological purposes of the current thesis, a mining project is here considered as a technical **system** whose main **function** is the exploitation of a mineral deposit in order to supply marketable products, with the objective of answering a world-wide demand for raw materials. In this section, the technical and operational dimensions of mining activities are described before a synthetic description of their reach at a world-wide scale.

### 1.1. What is a mining project?

As other human activities, mining is a socio-technical system characterized by complex interactions between humans and various technical processes at different spatio-temporal scales (Badri et al., 2012; Pactwa et al., 2018). A **mining system** could be considered as an organized set of connected mining processes (i.e. mining phasing), a scheme of facilities, tangible and intangible assets (e.g. exploitation engines, processing plants, mining licenses) and human resources needed to achieve one main goal: the extraction of minerals and/or metals from orebodies. It requires a special investment or allocation of resources such as capital, and completion within a specified time period (Allen, 2006).

From a traditional business perspective, a mining project is an investment business project which seeks an economically viable geologic deposit to explore and, in case, to extract in order to originate one or several marketable products (Lechner et al., 2017). The mining techniques involved for the exploitation of the deposit, the size of the project it-self and the entrepreneurial structure of a mining project can take a wide range of forms, according to the targeted commodity, the technical and financial capability of the mining operator and external factors related to the territory where mining is performed (e.g. regulatory frameworks, climatic conditions, accessibility of the mine site).
## 1.2. Mining phasing

Technically speaking, the exploitation of a mining deposit follows **four main phases** (Fig. 2). The first phase of prospecting and exploration has the purpose of defining and delimiting the geologic deposit. The spatial scale of the prospecting is considerably broad, during strategic exploration, in order to detect geochemical anomalies and tightened increasingly as the target deposit is identified, delimited and the reserves are estimated (Charles *et al.*, 2017).

Once the results of mineral prospection are promising, the second phase involves scoping, prefeasibility and feasibility studies of the mining project, its planification, financing and finally, its construction (Kister *et al.*, 2017). This phase has the purpose to evaluate the construction and operational costs in order to assure the financial and technical viability of the project before its operation. Every technical aspect of the mining operation is defined during this second step (e.g. ore exploitation techniques, mineral processing method, waste and water management procedures, site rehabilitation and mine closure) along with a general state of the art of the mine site, the identification of the related impacts likely to occur, the measures and safety procedures to reduce and stop the dysfunctions, the dismantling and reorganization of the mine site and its infrastructures, the monitoring and the anticipation of the residual risks (Poulard *et al.*, 2017).

The third phase consists in the exploitation of the deposit, the processing of the extracted materials and their transformation into marketable products. This phase involves as well the management of wastes, water and processing residues as well as the progressive rehabilitation of the mine site.

During the final phase, the mining operator must implement the rehabilitation measures that have been detailed during the prefeasibility and feasibility studies (potentially modified and adapted all along the operation of the mine). This phase aims to return the mine to its initial state and it is accompanied with land reclamation measures, the application of procedures to stop, reduce or compensate socio-environmental dysfunction that the mining project might generate (e.g. reduction of acid drainage from old uncovered mine wastes, revegetalization of the mine site) (Poulard *et al.*, 2017).

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2 Mining phasing and the main tasks performed by mining operators for each phase</figcaption></figure>
## 2. Mining performances at the territory level: a call for sustainability in the mining sector

The main objective of a mining system is the exploitation of a geological deposit for the production of marketable raw materials. This goal is achieved through the satisfaction of specific technical and operational performances. A **performance** is defined as the aptitude or the capability of a mining system or its components to perform the functions (i.e. objectives) for which it was designed (i.e. exploit the mineral deposit) (Talon and Curt, 2017).

However, in order to achieve such objective, mining activities might generate a wide range of outcomes that could exceed the mine site it-self, and positively or negatively affect the territory in which mining is performed. The *territoriality* of mining has been highlighted by scientific literature and public authorities during the years, in order to underline the need of the implementation of more pertinent land planning strategies for mining regions. During the last decades, the issue of sustainability has been increasingly addressed in the mining sector through the integration of socio-environmental performances intended to switch mining projects from mere business activities to development-aiming projects.

The territorial footprint of a mining project is thus represented by the nature of its performances and how mining contributes to the socio-ecological functions (i.e. ecosystem services delivery, well-being enhancement) of the territory in which mining is performed.

### 2.1. "Traditional" vision of mining activities as business projects

The consideration of a mining project as a system aiming at the only extraction of a given commodity from a business-based perspective represents the *traditional* vision of mining activities. This vision is nevertheless significant since in some regions it is more complex to efficiently integrate development and mining sustainable performances for political, regulatory, technical, cultural and socio-environmental factors.

During all the mining life cycle, a wide range of **technical, operational and financial performances** must fulfill such primary business functions. These performances are related to all the internal aspects of a mining project (Badri et al., 2012), including internal processes (e.g. methods and work procedures), systems (e.g. technical, management and organizational) and persons (within the organization or externally in interaction with the organization). They concern mining techniques (engineering, energetic performances, etc.), labor force (occupational safety and health performances, working conditions, training of workers, etc.), the geological deposit (existence and size of the deposit), production (financial viability, productivity and profitability performances, access to capital, subcontracting, etc.), logistics (accessibility to the site, communication, etc.) (Mancini and Sala, 20128; Pactwa et al., 2018). Technical, operational and financial performances depend also on legal and political requirements such as the possession of a mining license and the fulfillment of all the regulatory obligations, including the respect of
national and international public policies and potential political support from local
Governments where mining is performed.

The level at which mining performances are or are not guaranteed depends intrinsically
on the structural and functional organization of the different **components** of the mining system
(e.g. human, material and immaterial assets) like any business activity. Mining components vary
considerably according to the targeted commodity, the type of geological deposits and mining
techniques employed but also to the structure of the mining company and external socio-
economic factors. Durucan et al., (2006) perform a Life-Cycle Assessment on mining projects
describing the links between each structural component of a mining project (Fig. 3).

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 Boundaries of a mining system described by Durucan et al., (2006) for a Life-Cycle assessment</figcaption></figure>

## 2.2. Mining and Territory: a Socio-Ecological approach

As mentioned, as other human activities, mining might be an essential source of income
and a potential driver for economic development (e.g. creation of wealth, job opportunities,
technological development, raw materials supply, local business development, social
infrastructures expansion) (Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2019), especially in regions where the
opportunities for other economic activities might be limited. Mining is also the potential source
of negative outcomes of different natures affecting ecosystem services supply (e.g. soil, water
and air degradation, fragmentation of natural habitats), the derived socio-ecosystem services
and, hence, human well-being (e.g. poor health condition, social conflicts, insecurity) (Badri et
al., 2012; Schimann et al., 2012; Falck and Spangenberg, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2017; Bansah et
al., 2018). Such impacts often exceed the perimeter of the mine-site and affect the territory
where the mining project is located. However, unlike some other human activities, mining presents a peculiar feature, since it does not question project location (Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, 2015).

Despite the many definitions given by scientific literature (Simone et al., 2018), in this thesis, a **territory** is defined as every Socio-Ecological System (SES), composed of biogeophysical components and human actors (individual and collective) in mutual interaction (Blair and Buytaert, 2016; Gotts et al., 2018): socio-ecosystems are affected by human activities and in turn, they provide ecosystem services – or disservices – that might satisfy societal needs and support human well-being (Schulze et al., 2017; Berrouet et al., 2018; Gotts et al., 2018) (Fig. 1). This definition is independent from any administrative, geographical or biophysical boundaries that might be inferred (e.g. municipality, water catchment, region, nation). A territory system has, thus, two main functions to which a mining project must contribute as well. On one side, the delivery of ecosystem services, as the “benefits supplied to societies by natural ecosystems” (Daily, 1997; Costanza et al., 1997) and on the other one, the support of well-being as a global assessment of a person’s *quality of life* (WHO, 1997; Dodge et al., 2012).

## 2.3. Mining and sustainable development

Because of its negative impacts, during the last decades mining has increasingly come under the spotlight of international media and civil society criticism, and experienced increased conflicts and opposition from local communities (Hilson, 2002a; Falck and Spangenberg, 2014, Conde and Le Billon, 2017). This has pointed out the urgency for mining operators to consider in our modern society the concept of sustainable development and to include standards for the improvement of environmental and social mining performances (UNDP, 2018). Mining projects started being considered through a holistic approach as a part of a larger system – rather than as an industrial object left alone – integrating both a human and natural component on a broader spatial scale (Fig. 1). The consideration of mining projects as contributing parts of a larger socio-ecological system allowed a major shift from the traditional vision of mining as mere business activity towards a modern vision of potential development projects (Falck and Spangenberg, 2014; Singh and Singh, 2016).

The rise of sustainability and development concerns, as well as the associated new regulatory frameworks, encouraged industries to take into consideration the socio-environmental and governance dimensions of mining (Christmann et al., 2016; Husted and Sousa-Filho, 2017). Despite this switch has not been made clear yet, this new dimension allows the incorporation of new socio-environmental and “**sustainable-development (SD) performances)** that may be sought by mining operators (Azapagic, 2004; McLellan et al., 2009; Hodge, 2014; Nguyen et al., 2017; Betancur-Corredor et al., 2018; Pactwa et al., 2018; Zvarivadza, 2018; Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2019; Aznar-Sanchez et al., 2019). Among them, several international initiatives propose the integration of the frameworks proposed by the
International Finance Corporation (IFC) or the Equator Principles (UNDP, 2018; Equator Principles, 2020) in the mining sector.

At the international level, SD performance indicators for mining have been proposed withing the **Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)** (Azapagic, 2004; GRI, 2013; Mancini and Sala, 2018). Mancini and Sala (2018) reviewed and compared all these different frameworks for socio-environmental indicators to be integrated within the mining sector, including the GRI indicators and the **Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)**. At the national level, countries such Australia, have developed their own handbooks and guiding manuals to implement SD performances into mining activities (Australian Government, 2011).

The SDGs have been set by the U.N. General Assembly set in 2015 – as part of UN Resolution 70/1 and the 2030 Agenda – to be achieved by the year 2030: these 17 goals include the three different dimensions of sustainability (e.g. zero hunger, good health and well-being, land and water quality, education quality). The relevance of SDGs in the mining sector has been pointed out by multiple authors (Mancini and Sala, 2018; Monteiro et al., 2019; Kumi et al., 2020) and a White Paper published by the U.N. presents the discussion of what should be considered to implement SDGs specifically in the mining industry (UNDP et al., 2016) (Fig. 4).

For instance, the Responsible Mining Index evaluates the performances of single mining companies and their achievement of the SDGs (RMF, 2020).

The International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) proposes also an index to assess the worldwide contribution of mining to the socio-economic development of each country based on multiple existing performance indicators (ICMM, 2012; ICMM, 2016).

Other initiatives concern the framework defined within the Earth Observation Miners (EO Miners) project, supported by the European Commission ([http://www.eo-miners.eu](http://www.eo-miners.eu)), that aims to facilitate and improve the interaction between the mineral extractive industry and society in view of its sustainable development while improving its societal acceptability (Falck and Spangenberg, 2014).

General **SD indexes** have been proposed over the years in order to measure SD performances. For instance, Amirshenava and Osanloo (2019) review and combine different methods in order to propose a quantitative assessment methodology for SD-related impacts in the mining sector. Or else, Dialga, (2018) try to estimate SD indexes per each mining country. A quantitative model has been proposed by Husted and Sousa-Filho., (2017) in order to assess the impact of sustainable governance practices on **environmental, societal and governance (ESG)** performances including country-level variables such as country stakeholder orientation and country financial stability risk. Other authors discussed specific aspects of the mining industry, such as the implementation of SD performances within the mining design phase (McLellan et al., 2009), or in other cases the integration of SD through new innovations and
technologies for mining activities (Aznar-Sanchez et al., 2019). Few papers are discussed on a commodity-basis: Betancur-Corredor et al., (2018) point out the challenges and constraints to meet more sustainable conditions in gold mining sector while Hoadley and Limpitlaw, (2004) focus on artisanal and small-scale gold mining.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4 Major issues areas for mining and the implementation of SDGs (UNDP et al., 2016)</figcaption></figure>

## 2.4. Mining activities as development projects: the integration of new performances

Therefore, to the traditional operational performances of a mining project, which are related to its technical and economic viability as a business project, a new range of social, economic and environmental performances have been integrated. Such performances involve the capability of a mining project to support and contribute to the well-being and growth of the territory where it is located while avoiding environmental degradation (Fig. 5). For instance, **economic performances** might concern the economic profitability of the mining activity outside of the project-itself, i.e. to the surrounding human and physical environments. They include contributions to local and national incomes, the generation of foreign exchanges, raw materials supply, business and employment opportunity development. **Social performances** include the support to local livelihood (local direct and indirect employment, promotion of local commerce, education improvement, infrastructure improvement, societal acceptance, etc.), to the
preservation of human health (related to potential impacts on air, soil, water and other natural resources that may affect health of local community and their safety), human rights (child labor interdiction, respect of indigenous rights, control on the development of illicit mining communities, gender equality, etc.), land-use and planning contributions (residential, agricultural and urban areas maintain and support, adequate distance from sensitive areas, etc.), product responsibility (customer health and safety, materials stewardship), communication and stakeholders involvement (Voinov et al., 2016). Environmental performances are represented by the capability of mining operators to preserve the bio-geopedological resources and ecosystems of a territory, avoiding their bio-physical and chemical degradation but also implementing measures for the restoration of the site, revegetalization and land rehabilitation.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Figure 5 The transition from the traditional connotation of mining activities as merely business projects to projects integrating SD performances</figcaption></figure>

## 2.5. Socio-ecological vulnerability of mining territories

Based on what has been presented until now, a mining project is much more than a simple and local industrial object. Its functioning and its outcomes – positive or negative they might be – exceed the mine perimeter and may affect the functioning of a larger territorial system. Therefore, the management of a mining project and the assessment of its risks – depending on the implementation or not of the mentioned performances – cannot overlook the specific features and the **vulnerability** of the SES where mining is performed. At the same time, decision-makers and land-planners should account for the peculiar interaction between the territory, its vulnerability and the different mining activities there located: both project-management and land-planning decisions should be performed on different spatial scales.

The definitions of vulnerability are very variegated (Table 1). They are not unanimous, and some terminological gaps should be addressed. For instance, the definition of Muller *et al.*, (2011) focuses on the susceptibility to experience damage, limiting vulnerability only to “negative” events affecting the functioning of a system. Based on the general definitions presented in Table 1 and the consideration of a territory through a SES approach, territorial vulnerability to mining might be considered as the socio-ecological vulnerability, i.e. the socio-
ecological conditions and processes of a territory that determine its level of exposure and susceptibility to – positive or negative – stresses, changes and regime shifts due to mining activities. Therefore, vulnerability is an important component of risk that influence both the likelihood of occurrence of a risk event and the intensity of its consequences (Lauerbourg *et al.*, 2020).

<table><caption>Table 1 Examples of definition of "vulnerability" in scientific literature</caption><thead><tr><td>Vulnerability definition</td><td>References</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>The susceptibility of a system to experience damage</td><td>Muller <i>et al.</i>, 2011</td></tr><tr><td>The conditions and processes that determine the exposure and susceptibility of an individual, a community, a system, or a unit to disaster as well as their capacities to respond effectively to them</td><td>Maikhuri <i>et al.</i>, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>The affinity of a system to changes, determined by both, the exposure to external stresses and shocks and the intrinsic factors that determine the systems' resilience</td><td>Lauerbourg <i>et al.</i>, 2020</td></tr><tr><td>The function of system exposure to changes, its susceptibility to be affected by a change and its resilience to restore its functioning after the change occurred</td><td>Nasiri <i>et al.</i>, 2015; Sowman and Raemaekers, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Intrinsic properties of something that create susceptibility to a source of risk that can lead to a consequence</td><td>ISO, 2008</td></tr></tbody></table>

The application of vulnerability assessment of SES has been discussed by several recent papers (Berrouet *et al.*, 2018; Sowman and Raemaekers, 2018; Mekonnen *et al.*, 2019). The interest of a socio-ecological vulnerability assessment is the identification of **vulnerable areas** (Lauerbourg *et al.*, 2020), which would be an important parameter that must be accounted for in risk assessment and as support for decision-making for land-planning. Since this approach is relatively recent, no applications to the mining sector have been found except for sectorial studies which aimed to assess the ecological vulnerability of given mining systems at a territory level (Pandey and Bardsley, 2015; Peng *et al.*, 2015; von der Forst, 2018). For instance, Peng *et al.*, (2015) explores ecological and vulnerability assessment of mining cities at the landscape scale.

SES vulnerability assessment has been often coupled with the ecosystem services framework (de Chazal *et al.*, 2008; Berrouet *et al.*, 2018). Berrouet *et al.*, (2018) propose a conceptual framework for the vulnerability assessment of SES with a particular regard on soil-related ecosystem services. As suggested by the same authors, socio-ecological vulnerability depends on the level of provided/lost benefits and assets that a system might supply and, most of all, “on the type of need that such benefits satisfy”.

Among the different methodologies to assess vulnerability, one of the most common method is the use of **vulnerability indicators** (Nasiri *et al.*, 2016). In the cases of such large spatial areas, some methods use available data for providing a logical image of vulnerable spots through GIS-based tools, which help support decision-making and land-planning. According to Nasiri *et al.*, (2016), indicator-based assessment approaches can be “the greatest policy-making tool for
raising public awareness, support governments in priority of budget allocation and land-
planning purposes". However, according to these authors, such methods face considerable
complexity related with standardization, weighting, uncertainty, interdependencies between
the selected indicators and aggregation methods.

## 2.4. Why and how to evaluate the « performance » of a mining system?

The notion of mining performance plays a key-role for the development of a risk
assessment methodology of mining projects at the territory level because it can support the
evaluation of the contribution of mining to the mentioned territorial performances. As it has
been said, the contribution of the mining system to the territory in which it is located is realized
through the shift of mining to development activities rather than mere business projects, and
through the integration of new socio-environmental performances.

Thus, the quantification or the quantification of the footprint of mining in a given territorial
system, through the assessment of their performances, could represent an important tool to
help land-planning strategies in order to maximize benefits and opportunities (i.e. positive risks)
and reducing losses (i.e. negative risks) of different natures (e.g. environmental, social,
economic). Moreover, the satisfaction of socio-environmental performances improves the
social footprint of a mining project allowing positive feedbacks for mining operators.

The implementation of such performances has been encouraged through the years the
development of tools such as the **Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)** (Littlewood, 2015; Nxele,
2015; Pimpa et al., 2015), considered as a "business's commitment to contribute to sustainable
economic development, and also as the commitment to collaborators and their families, local
communities and society in general, to provide a better quality of life" (Rodrigues and Mendes,
2018). During the last decades, another tool that has been developing is the **Social License to
Operate (SLO)** which has been discussed by a very wide literature (Dare et al., 2014; Harvey and
Bice, 2014; Parsons et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2015; Mercer-Mapston et al., 2017; IGF et al.,
2018). Today SLO is viewed by some authors as a 'key condition for successfully establishing
and running a mining project' (Falck and Spangenberg, 2014; Hall et al., 2015). These tools have
been combined, at least from a theoretical point of view, also with the realization of the SDGs
(IGF et al., 2018). Nevertheless, some authors criticized such concepts as they would seem a
poorly conceptualized idea "invented by business, for business" or as a tool of limited
applicability and currently used to merely serve as a "window-dressing strategy for
controversial business practices" (Brueckner and Eabrasu, 2018).

From a juridical point of view, the evaluation and monitoring of the socio-ecological
performances of mining projects was performed through the implementation of common
formal tools such as regulatory frameworks and public policies specific to mining. The respect
of these new performances considerably influences the feasibility of mining projects (Pactwa
et al., 2018): for instance, the delivery of a mining permit or external financial investments and
loans to the mining company depend on how the operators would meet specific socio-environmental requirements.

Nevertheless, these performances should be considered by mining operators as an “ideal state” to be aimed and not as an administrative requirement (Voinov et al., 2016; Betancur-Corredor et al., 2018). Indeed, the negative outcomes of mining have a rebound effect on mining operators which are under pressure from governments, and/or financial institutions, civil society and local communities (Kemp et al., 2016). When their socio-ecological performances are unsatisfactory, mining projects might be at the origin of social conflicts (Clifford, 2017) and the target of considerable entrepreneurial risks (Pokorny et al., 2019) leading to delays, investment losses or even the cessation of the mining activity (Bergeron et al., 2015). Thus, the actualization of such performances represents an important criterion to sustain public tolerance of mining activities and secure legitimacy from local communities (Wessman et al., 2014; Poudyal et al., 2019). Therefore, the success of a mining project as a business project depends also on its contribution to the socio-ecological performances (e.g. human well-being, ecosystem health) of the territory in which mining is performed. Jeopardizing of one of these objectives might cause severe socio-environmental disruptions and compromise the project itself (e.g. public contestations, juridical sanctions, administrative halt measures).

## 3. Risks associated with mining projects

Until this point, it has been often mentioned the importance of the positive and negative “outcomes” generated by mining describing them as the factual effects of such activity. The assessment of such outcomes can help to identify, qualify or quantify the overall performance of a mining project. Such outcomes have been described here as “effects”, “benefits”, “opportunities”, “losses”, “threats”. However, the purpose of this thesis is the development of a methodology for risk assessment of mining projects at the territory level. Therefore, a formally precise and specific terminology urges to be defined. To serve this purpose, a Glossary is available at the beginning of this manuscript.

This section aims to fix several definitions related to the general risk assessment and management practices as described by ISO, (2008) or the PMBOK (2013). A general review of the main risks related to mining projects is given as the result of a thorough bibliographic review. Finally, different methods for risk and impact assessment applied to the mining sectors are reviewed and discussed in order to highlight their advantages and limitations.

### 3.1. Risk definition

A “risk” is defined as the positive or negative “effect of uncertainty on the objectives” of a system (ISO, 2008) or as “an event or an uncertain condition”, the occurrence of which might have an unexpected positive or negative effect on one or several objectives of a project
(PMBOK, 2013). Risk is composed of two main elements ISO, (2008). The first one is **probability**, as "the measure of the chance of occurrence expressed as a number between 0 and 1, where 0 is impossibility and 1 is absolute certainty". The second one is represented by its **consequences**, i.e. the outcomes of a risk event which can positively or negatively affect the objectives of a system, according to its exposure or vulnerability (ISO, 2008). However, the definition of "risk," is inherently controversial (Fischhoff et al., 1984). Often it is confused with a variegated terminology that includes "hazard", "danger" or "impact", when the probabilistic dimension is not taken into account.

In this thesis, a **mining risk** is considered as the “effects of uncertainties on the objectives” (i.e. functions) of a mining project. Hence, a **risk** is a ‘change-state **event**’, a “regime shift” (Filatova et al., 2016), a “deviation from the expected” (ISO, 2008) driven by exogenous and/or endogenous events which alter the state and functioning of a system to another one in which the performances are different: thus, each probable event modifying the performances of a mining project – and consequently the achievement of its functions – can be considered as a risk. A risk will be considered as positive or negative depending on whether it increases or decreases the associated performance(s).

Since the concept of risk and performances are tightly linked, the nature and types of risks depend on how and whether the performances of the mining project and/or the performances of the territory in which a mining project is located are altered. Therefore, mining risks vary depending on which performances are considered for the mining projects (e.g. traditional or socio-ecological). The traditional vision of mining projects might lead the risk assessment process to focus rather on entrepreneurial and technical-operational risks. In this thesis, the integration of SD-performances to mining projects, consequently, include a wide range of risks affecting the socio-ecological components of the territory where the project is located. Furthermore, depending on the project-management or land-planning purposes of the risk assessment process, the integration of these new performances should lead to assessments at the scale of territory level – rather than at the project-scale – that focus on multiple mining projects at the same time to support future strategies for mining territories.

## 3.2. "Categories" of risks

During a mine lifetime, each mining phase present its level, natures and types of risks according to the different techniques used. Since the prospecting phase involves mainly non-invasive techniques, the risks associated are relatively low. On the other hand, the operational phase is considered as the most susceptible source of risks of different natures. Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, (2015) distinguish between temporary and structural impacts of mining depending if they stem directly from the mining projects and respectively disappear when mining stops or actively continue even after mine closure. The authors show a considerable increasing of impacts as the construction of the mine begins and with the highest peaks during the operational phase (Fig. 6).
Mining risks also vary considerably depending on the intrinsic features of the mining project – such as the targeted commodity and the characteristics of the deposit – and the techniques used for mineral exploration, ore exploitation and mineral processing, as well as for site remediation. Sometimes, a great heterogeneity of techniques might be employed for the exploitation of a given commodity (e.g. gold, diamonds, copper), which are exploited both by artisanal miners and large companies. At the same time, based respectively on its human and natural features and its vulnerability, the SES where mining is performed might be the source of or the target of specific risks.

Concerning the “nature” of the risk, both **positive** (i.e. opportunities) and **negative** (i.e. losses) risks might be distinguished. Indeed, usually the controversial nature and the restrictive use of the term “risk” might suggest a focus exclusively on its negative connotation. For instance, the main typical positive risks related to mining projects concern the creation of jobs and the economic outcomes that mining activities might produce at a territory-level. However, the positive/negative dichotomy implies the integration of a subjective and multi-perspective dimension which varies according to each given stakeholder, for whom negative risks should not outweigh positive ones.

The “target” of the risk varies accordingly to the predefined performances and functions (i.e. objectives) of a given system. Mining performances are strictly tied to territorial performances and vice-versa. Therefore, a mining project might generate but also suffer risks of different natures. As mentioned, when its socio-ecological performances are unsatisfactory, a mining project is the source of negative risks which might be at the origin of social conflicts (Clifford, 2017). Such conflicts, derived from the social and environmental risks of mining activities, are translated into business costs and considerable entrepreneurial risks are suffered by mining operators themselves and affecting the success of a project (Franks et al., 2014; Bergeron et al., 2015; Pokorny et al., 2019). For instance, some authors borrow the concept of “rebound dynamics” to refer to business, financial, legal, enterprise, reputational, and project risks in mining (Kemp et al., 2016).

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>Figure 6 Structural impacts of mining projects for each mining phase (adapted from Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, (2015))</figcaption></figure>
The most typical distinction of the different types of risks related to mining projects concerns the nature of the impacted **"object"**, thus of the objectives or performances which are affected by the risk (Fig. 7). A great number of risks related to mining is widely discussed by scientific literature (Badri et al., 2012; Haldar, 2013; Gorniak-Zimroz and Pactwa, 2016; Singh and Singh 2016; Lechner et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2017; Bansah et al., 2018). For instance, Badri et al., (2012), distinguish between five main categories of risks with a particular attention on the technical and operational sphere of a mining project: operational, financial and economic, legal and political, environmental and health and safety risks (Donoghue, 2004). Betancur-Corredor et al., (2018) focus mainly on the potential societal (e.g. poverty, illegality, and violence) and environmental (e.g. waste generation, mercury and greenhouse gas emissions) negative risks of gold mining in Colombia, based on the types of mining processes involved for each mining phase. Mancini and Sala, (2018) discuss the integration of the GRI and SDGs within social performances of mining projects, categorizing both positive and negative risks based on performance categories (e.g. economy, income and security, employment and education, land use and territorial aspects, demography, environment, health and safety, human rights). In this thesis, mining risks are regrouped in 4 categories: economic, social, technical operational, and environmental (Figure 7, Table 2). In the table, some examples of these risk categories are detailed for gold mines (Table 2) (Scammacca et al., 2020).

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7 Link between the socio-ecological and technical operational performances and risks of mining projects</figcaption></figure>

**Environmental, economic and social risks** are related to the mentioned contribution of mining to economic recovery and well-being and its potential deterioration of the ecological and social systems in which mining is performed (Franks et al., 2011; Badri et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2017; Nguyen et al., 2018) (Fig. 7). Environmental risks might concern the effects of mining activities on biodiversity (Donato et al., 2017; Owusu et al., 2018; Sonter et al., 2018; Bax et al., 2019), deforestation (Dezecache et al., 2017; Ranjan, 2019), water and soil quality (Pirrie et al., 1996; Benito et al. 2001; Bissacot and Oliveira, 2017), soil erosion (Lei et al., 2012; Sinha et al., 2017;
Karan et al., 2019), land-use related impacts (Sonter et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2017; Venancio Aires et al., 2018; Vasuki et al., 2018). Social and economic risks concern health-related risks (Castellanos et al., 2016; Obiri et al., 2016; Sanchez et al., 2016; Gabari and Fernandez-Caliani, 2017) but also the positive and negative risks affecting the whole human dimension of a SES (e.g. human rights-related issues, creation of job opportunities, development of local infrastructures, investment in research and academic programs). This dimension has been poorly addressed over the years and new developments are currently being made (Aznar-Sanchez et al., 2019). Finally, technical and operational risks concern all risks affecting directly the internal sphere of a mining project.

<table><caption>Table 2 Bibliographic review of the typical risks of gold mines and the natures of the risks (Scammacca et al., 2020)</caption><thead><tr><th>Risk Category</th><th>Risk</th><th>Nature</th><th>Reference(s)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Economic</td><td>Crimes and insecurity for local communities (e.g. corruption, drug and arm dealing, prostitution, child labour)</td><td>Negative</td><td>Hentschel et al., 2002<br>WWF, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Development of local business as services providers</td><td>Positive</td><td>Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Development of research programs</td><td>Positive</td><td>MDO, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Direct economic outcomes (e.g. taxes, royalties)</td><td>Positive</td><td>Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Direct jobs opportunities</td><td>Positive</td><td>Pokorny et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Enhancement of local education and competence development</td><td>Positive</td><td>MDO, 2018</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Social</td><td>Enhancement of technological development</td><td>Positive</td><td>MDO, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Enhancement of women status</td><td>Positive</td><td>Keovilignavong, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Health problems and epidemiological diseases (e.g. malaria, HIV, food chain contamination)</td><td>Negative</td><td>Douine et al., 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Expansion of social infrastructures (e.g. roads, energy, services)</td><td>Positive/<br>Negative</td><td>Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Fight against illegal mining</td><td>Positive</td><td>MDO, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Migration of legal and illegal miners from bordering countries (“gold rushes”)</td><td>Negative</td><td>Moullet et al., 2006; Hook, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Price increase of local primary goods</td><td>Positive/<br>Negative</td><td>Pokorny et al., 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Raw material supply</td><td>Positive</td><td>Amirshenava and Osanloo, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Resource dispossession (e.g. land, water, crops) and reallocation of communities</td><td>Negative</td><td>Keovikignavong, 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Social disruption (e.g. opposition, conflicts, increase of inequalities)</td><td>Negative</td><td>Moisan and Blanchard, 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Support to ethnic minorities</td><td>Positive</td><td>MDO, 2018</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Technical Operational</td><td>Acid mine drainage (AMD)</td><td>Negative</td><td>Miramond et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Cyanide spills</td><td>Negative</td><td>Urien, 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Delays and cessation of the activity</td><td>Negative</td><td>Bergeron et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Financial loss for the operator</td><td>Negative</td><td>Bergeron et al., 2015</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td></td><td>Landslides</td><td>Negative</td><td>Laperche et al., 2008</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mine subsidence</td><td>Negative</td><td>Bourbon, 2015</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Pit instability</td><td>Negative</td><td>Bourbon, 2015</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Technical infrastructures development</td><td>Positive</td><td>MDO, 2018</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Enhancement of local skills and training programmes</td><td>Positive</td><td>MDO, 2018</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Work injuries</td><td>Negative</td><td>Hentschel et al., 2002</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="11">Environmental</td><td>Atmospheric pollution</td><td>Negative</td><td>Melières et al., 2003</td></tr><tr><td>Dam failure related flood, contamination and turbidity</td><td>Negative</td><td>Bourbon and Mathon, 2012</td></tr><tr><td>Deforestation</td><td>Negative</td><td>Rahm, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Destruction of ecological habitats and biodiversity</td><td>Negative</td><td>Galochet and Morel, 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Direct mercury pollution (e.g. gold recovery techniques)</td><td>Negative</td><td>Clifford, 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Food chain contamination with mercury</td><td>Negative</td><td>Fréry et al., 2001</td></tr><tr><td>Heavy metals contamination in water and soils</td><td>Negative</td><td>Marchand et al., 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Landscape degradation</td><td>Negative</td><td>Laperche et al., 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Physical alteration of riverbeds (hydromorphological impacts)</td><td>Negative</td><td>Laperche et al., 2008</td></tr><tr><td>Remobilization of ancient mercury and sources of methylmercury</td><td>Negative</td><td>Guedron et al., 2011a</td></tr><tr><td>Soil erosion</td><td>Negative</td><td>Labriere et al., 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Surface water turbidity</td><td>Negative</td><td>Gallay et al., 2018</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 3.3. Risks and conflicts / controversies about mining projects

As mentioned, since mining risks exceed the mine-site itself, they are often the source of debates, strong oppositions and potential conflicts which are translated into an entrepreneurial and business cost suffered by mining operators (Franks et al., 2014). Indeed, negative mining risks are often perceived as lack or loss of ecological and socio-economic benefits for local communities (Verbrugge and Greenen, 2019). For instance, Nevada's largest mining company has suspended its proposed expansion of what would become one of the biggest gold mines in the world Facing fierce opposition from conservationists and tribal leaders (The Associated Press, 2020). Or else, in French Guiana, the large-scale gold mine of Montagne d'Or has been strongly criticized by both local and French metropolitan communities because of the potential environmental impacts were not considered as outweighing the economic outcomes derived from the project. These conflictual dynamics exceed the mining project scale and involve broader issues related to the re-thinking of potential strategies for the development of mining territories.

The conflictual nature of mining projects has been widely discussed by scientific literature (Hilson, 2002a; Adoteng-Kissi et al. 2015; Clifford, 2017; Conde and Le Billon, 2017;
Aguilar-Gonzalez et al., 2018; Davis and Manzano, 2018). As shown in the following maps, comparing the distribution of currently active mine sites and the conflicts related to mining activities (Appendices 1-2), social disruptions are spread worldwide. Yet, their distribution could be related to specific sensitive areas, as showed by the "Environmental Justice Atlas" (https://ejatlas.org/), a research project funded by the European Commission, which proposes an on-line platform for digital maps of conflicts related to natural resources exploitation (Appendix 2). However, data availability is a major concern and the information concerning the distribution of such conflicts may be strongly biased in countries where reporting is severely constrained. Another example is the Australian project "Complex Orebodies" (https://smi.uq.edu.au/complex-ore-bodies) which is a transdisciplinary program that aims to enhance the "social understanding, environmental innovation, and mining and processing efficiency" in the mining industry (Lèbre et al., 2019; Valenta et al., 2019)

Economic development and socio-environmental integrity should not compromise each other (Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, 2015) and nowadays, the real challenge of mining is if where and how the development might proceed without significantly disturbing the ecosystems, communities and economies overlying and surrounding mineral deposits/ processing sites (Franks et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2017). Most of the time, the failure of technical and operational performances at the mine sites, triggers the occurrence of negative risks of various natures affecting the whole territory and rebounding inexorably on mining operators themselves. Hence, the success of a mining project, as a business project, relies on its positive contribution to socio-ecological performances of the territory where mining is performed, as a development project. Such spatial variability also contributes to point out the territorial reach of mining, the progressive integration of socio-ecological performances at the project level and encourages **integrated and structured risk management strategies that are transversal, multi-scale** and that holistically consider **mining as a real matter of land-planning and management**.

## 4. Existing methods for risk assessment in the mining sector and their gaps

Mining activities are under a continuous regulatory and public scrutiny. The achievement of mining performances and the respect of current regulatory frameworks impose a strict control from public authorities but also from non-governmental organizations. Such controls result in the implementation, both by authorities and mining operators themselves, of tools – not peculiar to mining projects – designed for the identification, the analysis, the assessment and the management of mining risks. Whether a mining project is acceptable or not for society and all the stakeholders involved depends also on the assessment of their specific risks (Christmann et al., 2016). However, the management of a mining project is a multidisciplinary and complex task and literature "is not unanimous on the subject of risk management processes that mining enterprises should put in place" (Chinbat, 2011; Badri et al., 2012).
The present section aims to present some of the existing risk assessment methods that are currently applied also to the mining sector. These methods will be furtherly discussed in order to understand their advantages and limits but also their suitability to be integrated as methods to support the development and comparison of potential land-planning strategies for mining territories. In this study, two main groups of risk assessment methodologies are distinguished.

A first group (A) which includes all the methodologies and tools used to perform **industrial risk management** (Badri et al., 2012) at a very technical and operational scale. The risk management process is defined by ISO 31000 and it involves the systematic application of management policies, procedures and practices to the tasks of communicating, consulting, establishing the context, identifying, analyzing, evaluating, treating, monitoring and reviewing risk (ISO, 2008). Usually these methodologies are performed at the scale of the project itself and they involve the utilization of considerable amount of qualitative and quantitative data.

The second group (B) represents the current methods used for the assessment of impacts generated by a project. In this category two main tools are considered: **Environmental and/or Social Impact Assessment** (EIA and ESIA) and **Life-Cycle Assessment** (LCA) studies. These methods concern mainly the identification and assessment only of the consequences generated by a project, usually without any consideration of probability (in some cases such methods might include probabilistic assessments and vulnerability analysis). Further typologies could include also the methods conceived solely for probability or vulnerability assessment, but such methods can be considered as complementary to the first two categories here described. The vulnerability assessment at the territory level is detailed in Chapter 2.

A specific tool usually applied also to mining projects is the **SWOT analysis**. This method does not involve a proper risk-assessment, but it represents rather the holistic description and representation of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats that might affect a specific project, an industrial sector of even a whole territorial system. This tool is widely used in the industrial sector for project management, including the mining sector (Cluett, 2012; Neagu et al., 2015) Since it allows the analysis and comparison of scenarios for decision-making support, this tool will be furtherly discussed in Chapter 10 and 11.

## 4.1 Risk-based methodologies of risk assessment (A)

Verma and Chaudhari, (2016) propose a detailed comparative review of the main risk assessment methodologies adopted in the mining sector. The authors show that often assessment is performed through a combination of different complementary tools and methods. Among the most common methodologies applied to the mining sector belonging to the first group, we might list the **Hazard and Operability Study** (HAZOP) and the **Failure Mode and Effect Analysis** (FMEA). HAZOP is a "highly disciplined procedure meant to identify how a process may deviate from its design intent" (Dunjó et al., 2009) and which potential undesirable
events may create hazards or operability problems. (Robu et al., 2007; Paithankar, 2011; Krzemien et al., 2016). FMEA is a systematic, inductive and qualitative technique used to identify and eliminate faults or deviations in a system before they cause problems. Each function in a system is analyzed and it can easily be very extensive (Onofrio et al., 2015). The results may include causes of failure, effect, frequency, severity, probability and recommended actions. FMEA objectives include the identification of failure causes, modes and effects (Bouti and Kadi, 1994; Onofrio et al., 2015; Kritzinger, 2017; Spreafico et al., 2017). FMEA improvements involve the integration of a criticality analysis procedure (FMECA) which provides ways to perform probabilistic analysis to determine the criticality of failure modes. (Alverbro et al., 2010; Paithankar, 2011; Kabir, 2017; Hatayama and Tahara, 2018).

Besides these two methods, the **Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA)** is a technique for the brief identification and estimation of risk sources and potential negative events (Alverbro et al., 2010). The results are usually displayed in a table and may include descriptions of causes and consequences of an event, estimations of probabilities and severity of the consequences, current protection and recommended actions (Robu et al., 2007; Alverbro et al., 2010).

In some cases, specific methodologies aim to perform in a detailed way only one of the steps of the risk management process. For instance, the **"What-if" method** is a technique mainly used for the *identification* of risk sources by analyzing the potential consequences of deviations in a system. It is very similar to PHA, but more detailed (Robu et al., 2007; Alverbro et al., 2010).

In other cases, the analysis result in the development of "risk trees" which aim to the reconstruction of the potential causes and consequences of a deviation in a system. It's the case of the **Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)** and the **Event Tree Analysis (ETA)** (Perret and Adrian, 2001). Both FTA and ETA are deductive techniques widely used to determine system dependability by showing the logical connections between faults, their causes and consequences. Their main objectives are to: identify respectively the root causes and the accidental consequences of a system failure; support the development of proactive and reactive safety measures to improve system performance; comprehensively assess the risks and their importance (Robu et al., 2007; Alverbro et al., 2010; Paithankar, 2011; Kabir, 2017). The FTA and ETA are often integrated in a wider approach called the **Bow-Tie (BT) method**, a highly-structured tool which offers the possibility to construct major risk scenarios around a main initial event (Delvosalle et al., 2017). This method allows one of the best graphical approaches to represent complete risk scenarios around a single risk event (Khakzad et al., 2013) and involves the use of a diagram in which the central part is represented by a main initial event. For this reason, the BT is widely used in high hazard industries like oil and gas, aviation and mining (de Ruijter and Guldenmund, 2016). The main components of the BT are, on the left, the Fault Tree, on the right, the Event Tree, representing respectively the causes and the consequences of the initial event (Aqlan and Ali, 2014; de Ruijter and Guldenmund, 2016). These trees can be divided into sub-trees that represent intermediate events of causes or consequences (Delvosalle et al., 2017). A third
essential element in application of BT diagrams is the use of safety measures, defined as "barriers", which can be proactive (PSM) or reactive (RSM), if their purpose is respectively to prevent the ICE to occur or to reduce its consequences once occurred (Ehlers et al., 2017). However, other methods can serve, in different ways, the same purpose of the BT (for instance the Ishikawa diagram).

Finally, another method which can be used is the **Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)** study, a bottom-up approach that considers how to prevent hazards from occurring and/or propagating (Frank et al., 2008; Ovocom, 2016).

Further methodologies for industrial risk assessment could be found in Tixier et al., (2002) which compared sixty-two risk assessment methodologies in the industrial sector, without any special mention to mining activities. The authors distinguish between deterministic and probabilistic methods (or a combination of the two), the type of data used etc.

## 4.2. Impact-based methodologies of risk assessment (B)

The second group of methodologies includes two procedures widely used by mining operators, consulting services, governments and researchers to assess the impacts of a specific project system. In this study, **Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)** and **Life-Cycle Analysis** methodologies are considered.

### 4.2.1. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA)

The EIA has been increasingly positioned within a broader context of sustainability and it became in the second half of 20th century the most widely recognized and practiced of assessment methods with legal and institutional force in many parts of the world (Jay et al., 2007). Originated from the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the EIA has the objective to supply decision-makers with an indication of the likely environmental consequences of specific projects and it is now an integral process of environmental management (Clark et al., 2019). The EIA is an important tool for decision makers and its definition is widely discussed in the scientific literature (Crawley and Aho, 1999; Cashmore et al., 2004; Jay et al., 2007; Enríquez-de-Salamanca et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2019). It can be considered as a technical and rational evaluation to identify and evaluate the probable environmental consequences of certain proposed development actions to facilitate and provide a basis for objective decision-making processes. Therefore, the main result of the EIA is to produce a report – i.e. the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – which identifies, describes, and evaluates the environmental impacts stemming from the interaction of the project with environmental factors (Toro et al., 2003). The EIS contains a rigorous project-by-project evaluation (e.g. screening, baseline data, identification and impact assessment, management and monitoring measures) of the significative impacts on the environment; allows
the anticipation of such impacts and their effects in order to eliminate, reduce, compensate them before any prior commitment; provides the necessary elements for pertinent decision-making process to make the project acceptable.

Nowadays, the carrying out of a EIA is a general obligation under customary international law (Clark *et al.*, 2019). It is up to the national regulatory framework of each country adopting the EIA to specify the types of projects concerned by the EIA process. In the European Union, the Directive 2014/52/EU of 14th April 2014 states mandatory and discretionary procedures to assess the effects of certain private and public projects on the environment. EIA is widely applied to the mining sector, both for research and public policies perspectives (Cashmore *et al.*, 2004; Suopajärvi, 2013; Toro *et al.*, 2013; Galas and Galas, 2016; Esteves, *et al.*, 2017; Gimpel *et al.*, 2018; Hresc *et al.*, 2018). For instance, in France the article R.122 of the Environmental Code lists all the types of activities for which an EIS is mandatory, such as mineral and geothermal exploitation. In Italy, the EIA (or *Valutazione di Impatto Ambientale, VIA*) applied to quarrying and mining have two different regulatory frameworks (Cormio, 2005).

The structure and the methodology for the EIA vary considerably on a country-basis, especially where legislations are highly different (Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, 2015; Yao, 2018). For instance, interaction or prediction matrices are widely used in EIA (Toro *et al.*, 2003). Based on the dispositions of the EU Directive, the most frequent method is a qualitative tool called Leopold matrix. The matrix combines socio-environmental key aspects with each phase of the considered project in order to give importance scores (from 1 to 100) for each of the identified environmental impacts, which may, at the end of the process, produce a total score of environmental impacts generated by the activity or project.

Recently derived from the EIA, the **Social Impact Assessment (SIA)** the process of identifying and managing the social issues of project development and includes the effective engagement of affected communities in participatory processes of identification, assessment and management of social impacts (Ocampo-Melgar *et al.*, 2019; International Association for Impact Assessment, 2015). Although it is still under development, the SIA has been adopted by several countries (e.g. Canada, Australia) but at the moment there is not a world-wide recognition of this tool on a regulatory and juridical level as for the EIA.

In this category of assessment methodologies, we include as well all sort of impact-based studies that have been developed during the last few decades based on the same general methodological structure and objectives of EIA. These methodologies can be performed at different geographic levels. Examples of such methodologies are, for instance, the Health Impact Assessment (HIA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment (SES), the Social Cumulative Impact Assessment (SCIA), Human Rights Impact Assessment, (HRIA), Gendre Impact Assessment (GIA) and so on (Fig. 8) (UNDP, 2018).
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 8 Families of Environmental and Social impact assessment methods, the geographic areas considered, and the issues covered (UNDP, 2018)</figcaption></figure>

### 4.2.2. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The second group of methods concerns the recent and still under development **Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)** analysis. LCA is applied in the mineral and metal sector and can help meet SDGs (Yellishetty *et al.*, 2009; Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, 2011; Gemechu *et al.*, 2016; Yao, 2018; Farjana *et al.*, 2019; Beylot *et al.*, 2020). A short review of some examples of case-studies of LCA in the mining sector is available in Table 3, according to the targeted commodity and the spatial scale of the assessment.

LCA consists in the compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs and the potential environmental impacts of a product, process or activity throughout its life cycle (“cradle-to-grave” approach) or a specific defined moment (“cradle-to-gate”) (Durucan *et al.*, 2006; Yellishetty *et al.*, 2009; Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, 2011; Bjorn *et al.*, 2018). It is an excellent tool to evaluate the environmental performance of current and future policies and support decision-making in the mining industry through a systemic approach (Durucan *et al.*, 2006). In some cases, LCA might be included in EIA studies as well (Yao, 2018).

One of its fundamental features is that, unlike EIA and SIA procedures, LCA is today a standardized process, which means that its principles and framework are defined by a common and internationally recognized norm of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 14040 and ISO 14044).

The main objectives of an LCA are to: identify the opportunities to improve the environmental performance of products at various points in their life cycle; inform decision-makers in industry, government or non-government organizations; select relevant indicators of environmental performance, including measurement techniques; and finally include marketing purposes (e.g. eco-labelling schemes) (Olsen, *et al.*, 2001).
<table><caption>Table 3 Brief review of some examples of LCA applications within the mining sector based on the targeted commodity and the country where the mining project is located</caption><thead><tr><th>Reference</th><th>Objective of the study</th><th>Commodity</th><th>Country</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Chen et al., (2018)</td><td>LCA assessment to Chinese gold production sector</td><td>Gold</td><td>China</td></tr><tr><td>Blanco et al., (2018)</td><td>Development of a framework for impact assessment and economic valuation of water-related ecosystem services in LCA in order to compare two mining water supply systems</td><td>Copper</td><td>Chile</td></tr><tr><td>Islam et al., (2020)</td><td>Integration of remote-sensing based imagery data within the LCA process to quantify the environmental impacts of a copper-silver-gold mine in Laos</td><td>Copper<br>Silver<br>Gold</td><td>Laos</td></tr><tr><td>Alves and Coutinho, (2019)</td><td>LCA applied to niobium mining sector in Brazil</td><td>Niobium</td><td>Brazil</td></tr><tr><td>Agwa-Ejon and Pradhan, (2018)</td><td>Quantification of the environmental and health impacts related to sandstone artisanal and small-scale mining in South Africa.</td><td>Sandstone</td><td>South Africa</td></tr><tr><td>Ingwesen, (2011)</td><td>Quantification of the total environmental contribution underlying production of gold-silver bullion at the Yanacocha mine in Peru</td><td>Gold,<br>Silver</td><td>Peru</td></tr><tr><td>Hengen et al., (2014)</td><td>Comparison of the environmental impacts over the life cycles of several implemented and optional AMD treatment methods, incorporating both passive and active approaches employed</td><td>Coal</td><td>New Zealand</td></tr><tr><td>Awuah-Offei et al., (2009)</td><td>Development of a method of evaluating the environmental impacts of belt conveyors and truck haulage systems by conducting a LCA of the two systems for a hypothetical hard rock gold mine located in Alberta, Canada</td><td>Gold</td><td>Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Zhang et al., (2018)</td><td>Environmental impact analysis including land reclamation stage using life cycle assessment (LCA) method.</td><td>Coal</td><td>China</td></tr><tr><td>Roychoudhury and Khanda et al., (2016)</td><td>Review of the current application of LCA in the coal mining industry.</td><td>Coal</td><td>Worldwide</td></tr><tr><td>Northey, (2018)</td><td>Assessment of water-use related risks in mining</td><td>Copper<br>Lead-Zinc<br>Nickel</td><td>Worldwide</td></tr></tbody></table>

Four main steps are generally considered: goal and scope definition, the inventory analysis (LCI), impact assessment and finally the interpretation of the results. The LCI phase is extremely important since it concerns the acquisition of data for each considered process in the LCA and their assessment. Several LCI databases are currently available and used such as *Ecoinvent*, or those proposed by the National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPS) (Chen et al., 2018). The assessment implies the transformation of « environmental flows » listed during the LCI to potential impact indicators according to different empirical and mathematical methods. LCI might be based on mid-point (it considers the environmental flow between the project and the target, quantifying only a
fraction of the impacting mechanism) and end-point approaches (assessment of the whole mechanism, until the quantification of the environmental impact) (Yao, 2018).

Besides the systemic approach, what it is interesting in LCA is also the fragmentation of the studied system(s) in functional or multi-functional units, based on the services and the functions that each system component can deliver and the comparison with the corresponding impacts generated. Energy is commonly used in LCA as a main parameter to help quantifying the total energy supplied to drive processes in all the industrial life-cycle (Ingwesen, 2011).

Finally, few researches have recently emphasized the interest of performing LCA studies at wider scales, developing "Territorial LCA" (TLCA) which attempts to provide more appropriate indicators to stakeholders in charge of managing and developing their territories (Loiseau et al., 2018; Roibas et al., 2018; Jouini et al., 2019). In this case, the broader contextualization of the LCA extends the assessment to the intimately related territorial features to production-consumption patterns where a mining project is located. Loiseau et al. (2018) suggests two types of TLCA:

- a first type when it assesses the environmental impacts of a specific activity or supply chain performing in a given territory;

- a second type which considers all the production and consumption activities to quantify its "eco-efficiency", or the ratio between the services provided by the territory and the corresponding impacts on the environment.

### 4.3. Discussion: gaps and limits of the current assessment methods

A great range of approaches for risk and impact assessment of mining projects has been presented in Section 3. However, as mentioned, the management of a mining projects and their risks is a multidisciplinary and complex task, mainly because of the presence of dynamic environments and a great number of constraints of various character (Badri et al., 2012). Moreover, mining activities present a considerable amount of intrinsic unique specificities – related to the type of commodity and their geological features, the mining phasing and mining techniques employed – that need to be apprehended during risk assessment.

As it is highlighted in this first Chapter, mining is a matter of land planning and, thus, of public policies and politics, since mining involves the appropriation of a space and the exclusive change of land-use. Therefore, risk assessment practices can play an important complementary tool to support the development and comparison of strategies for the management of mining territories that overcome the sphere of the mining project alone, for instance through scenario-based approaches. In order to do so, risk assessment methodologies need to account both for the plurisciplinarity of the territorial dimension of mining and for the technical and operational specificities of mining activities themselves. However, decision-making support purposes require an easy operationalization that should be guaranteed by the adaptability of the
methodology to the available data, its spatialization and the homogeneity of its results that
allows an easy understanding and communication.

Despite the peculiar advantages of each risk and impact assessment methods here
presented, there are important gaps that urge to be addressed. From a general point of view,
current mandatory assessment methods do not properly take into consideration the holistic
understanding of the larger system in which a mining project is located. They neglect the
occurrence of multiple mining projects in a same given area and the cumulative risks generated
(Franks et al., 2013). The methods currently adopted in the mining sector are not generalized
and resistant to uncertainties in the availability of the data (Verma and Chaudhari, 2016).
Furthermore, such methods are often project-centered, performed on large capital stock
investment projects and they do not take into consideration the great variety of existing mining
project types at the same time (Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, 2015). For instance,
Agwa-Ejona and Pradhan, (2018) put the attention on the fact that the impacts related to
informal or legal artisanal and small-scale mining of specific commodities (e.g. gold, gems,
diamonds, sandstone and limestone) are extremely complex to quantify and that very few or
no studies address their structured assessment. Moreover, current assessment methods do
not account for the transversal nature of risks (e.g. social, environmental, geotechnical) (Gotts
et al., 2018), they might be extremely time-consuming, expensive and rely on the skills and
training of the experts employed for the assessment (Paithankar, 2011).

Table 4 is the result of a bibliographic review concerning the main risk-based (group A) and impact-based (group B) methodologies here presented. On the left column, the main specificities considered for each method are divided in five main categories depending if they are related to the methodology, to the types of risk or impacts considered, the scale of the impacts and the final output. The purpose of Table 4 is to highlight the main characteristics of the mentioned methodologies in order to facilitate their qualitative comparison. From a general point of view, the main distinguishing criterion between the two groups of methodologies is the object of the assessment.

4.3.1. Risk-based methods (A)

Risk-based tools have the advantage to integrate the probabilistic dimension of the
occurrence of a failure event and to assess the risk based on considerable technical and
operational data internal to the project itself (Olsen et al., 2001). These methods can be
deterministic, probabilistic or a combination of the two (Tixier et al., 2002) The advantages in
terms of technical knowledge of the project imply at the same time a lack of spatial extension
since risk-based methods. Indeed, although risk assessment methodologies do consider the
interactions between the project and its external environment (Esra Tepeli, 2016), in most of
the cases, only the achievement of the project objectives is considered in risk analysis, i.e. only
the events that might affect project objectives and performances are considered as risks.
Therefore, it might be complex to integrate such methods for assessment purposes at broader
spatial scales for land-planning perspectives. Moreover, such methods usually consider only
accidental conditions (i.e. outside the ordinary functioning of a project), without being applied
to assess the impacts generated by the normal functioning of a project, i.e. ordinary operational
conditions (Paithankar, 2011).

The rendering of the results of risk assessment methods are often expressed in a
graphical form or diagrams that might be difficult to share and communicate for the
understanding of the general public and public authorities. This may lead to acceptability
concerns regarding the transparency of the procedure and the functioning of the project itself
but also to operational constraints for decision-makers, especially at larger spatial scales. For
instance, this is the case for HAZOP methods. Because of their considerable level of detail, such
tools might be very time-consuming. Nevertheless, they are site-specific, not graphical, concern
usually accidental conditions. Some of these gaps also apply to FMEA and FMECA. However,
these two methods can be even more expensive and time-consuming than HAZOP since the
level of detail is considerably higher. For the same reason, FMEA and FMECA are not easily
adaptable when data are unavailable. Moreover, these methods are subjective and not fully
pertinent to be applied to complex systems. They are very extensive studies but, in some cases,
they might lack of criteria for assessment, integrative methods, guidelines or a structured
terminology. FMEA and FMECA area realized by a multi-disciplinary team which covers the
transversal dimension of the risk assessment. PHA are based on available data and propose
good risk ranking tools. However they are not graphical nor spatialized and site-specific. "What-
if" methods on the other hand, are moderately detailed and only qualitative (Table 4).
Concerning FTA, Table 4 shows a very poor suitability for the consequences of a risk event
considered, since FTA concerns only the causes to an initial central event. Also, FTA and ETA
are usually rendered through a tree structure which make them suitable to visual outputs.

4.2.3. Multi-projects risk-based methods

It is important to underline the existence of specific methods developed for the risk assessment of multiple projects at the same time (Pillai et al., 2002) and for project portfolio risk management (De Maio et al., 1994; Olsson, 2007). Nevertheless, these methods are project-centered in the sense that they focus on the industrial dimension of the project. Risks are identified and assessed based on the internal objectives of the project it-self, rather than the territory where such activities are performed. Actors such as “stakeholders” are replaced by “customers” (Pillai et al., 2002) that might profit of the economic and industrial activity of such projects. Moreover, by our knowledge, no application of such methods to the mining sector has been highlighted.

4.3.3. Impact-based methods (B)
This sub-section highlights the main limitations (Table 4) of the impact assessment methods presented in sub-section 4.2 of the present chapter.

### 4.3.3.1 Limits of Environmental Impact Assessment and Social Impact Assessment

Despite its extensive utilization, its legal formalization and its vital role for the analysis the impacts related to a mining project for general land planning purposes, EIA is considerably criticized by professionals and scientific literature (Crawley and Aho, 1999; Jay et al., 2007; Enríquez-de-Salamanca et al., 2018). If some issues concern the theoretical grounding, quality and effectiveness of the EIA and their linkage with sustainable development (Cashmore et al., 2004; Clarks et al., 2019), critics might be considered of two main orders: methodological and substantial.

Concerning the first order of gaps, no common and predefined methods for impact assessment are available for EIA. Indeed, EIA is not a normalized procedure – unlike LCA for instance – and no common standard dispositions are assessed for the elaboration of this analysis. The methodologies to qualitatively or quantitatively assess the impacts of a given project vary on a case-to-case basis. They highly depend on the experts performing the assessment and methodological choices are often poorly discussed (Suopajärvi, 2013). Thus, EIA come in different shapes and sizes as different contractors and consultants have their own assessment methods, which increase the complexity of reviewing regulatory frameworks (Clark et al., 2019).

Moreover, some authors criticize the insufficient integration and linkage as well between EIA and other methodologies for risk assessment and project management (Clark et al., 2019). The same authors point out the need to develop systemic and eco-systemic approaches within the EIA process, in order to take into consideration the structural and functional dimensions of natural ecosystems during impact assessment. Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, (2015) criticize the temporal dimension of EIA since they are developed during the feasibility phase of a mining project and, thus, they are based only on hypothetical data.

Substantial gaps of EIA are the most criticized since they have considerable repercussions on its effectiveness on decision-making support. Authors point out the poor the implementation of EIA within decisional processes where such tools are “not fully integrated into determinative institutional patterns of decision-making” (Jay et al., 2007). Indeed, it is important to underline that EIA are not legally binding since the assessment is carried by institutions or professionals hired directly by the promoters of the project. The content of the EIA gains legal importance when they are integrated within the administrative acts (e.g. mining permits or authorizations) which embody the final decision of public authorities. Hence, the effective application of EIA is affected by the regulatory and political strengths/weaknesses of a country (Jay et al., 2007): EIA might be circumvented by decision-makers, marginalized in favor of other non-environmental or political factors (Wood and Jones, 1997; Jay et al., 2007).
These limitations derive from the fact that, as pointed out by Cashmore *et al.*, (2004), EIA originated from a political imperative rather than a scientific theory. Therefore, in the practice, EIA might contribute to environmental governance with very moderate effectiveness (Cashmore *et al.*, 2004; Clark *et al.*, 2019).

Besides these important gaps, EIA is conceived as a project-centered assessment tool (Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, 2015) where cumulative and indirect impacts and societal impacts might be neglected (Frank *et al.*, 2012; Yao, 2018; Clark *et al.*, 2019). The integration of stakeholders represents another flaw pointed out by some authors (Enríquez-de-Salamanca *et al.*, 2018; Oscampo-Melgar *et al.*, 2019) even within the SIA process (Suopajärvi, 2013). Issues of transparency might be addressed, especially when the EIS is not accessible to the public (Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, 2015; Yao, 2018).

Several other specific concerns must be considered for the application of EIA to the mining sector. Although technical information is vital for pertinent risk and impact assessments, EIA seems to insufficiently detail the mining operational dimension (Clark *et al.*, 2019. Also, Castilla-Gomez and Herrera-Herbert, (2015) emphasize the difficulty to develop pertinent assessment tools due to the great variety of methods and techniques used in mining projects, which vary according to the targeted commodity and the related geological deposit.

#### 4.3.3.2 Limits of Life Cycle Assessment

Before its standardization, as the EIA, LCA was conducted by different approaches leading to a wide variation of results (Yellishetty *et al.*, 2009). However, this method is mostly used by scientific authors and Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, (2011) suggest that there is "limited life-cycle thinking among mining professionals".

Despite the imperative acknowledgment of the internal technical and operational features of a project, according to some authors, in the mining sector, mining projects are often represented as a "black box", and that LCA software and tools neglect the specific features and processes of mining, relying on data often considered inadequate (Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, 2011). Indeed, one of the most important issues in LCA is data availability, especially in industrial sectors such as mining, with limited datasets and life-cycle inventories (Durucan *et al.*, 2006; Farjana *et al.*, 2019) where data are often in the form of corporate reports (Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, 2011).

Regarding the object of the assessment, LCA focus on the ordinary functioning of an activity and, thus, it is not capable to pertinently integrate accidental scenarios (Crawley and Aho, 1999). Yellishetty *et al.*, (2009) discuss the importance of the integration of the spatio-temporal differentiation of the impacts related to a mining but also the issue of abiotic resources depletion which is peculiar to mining (Beylot *et al.*, 2020) or the better inclusion of socio-economic impacts (Crawley and Aho, 1999). Also, land use impacts are very important to community, professionals and companies and they can be an important indicator to estimate
the environmental footprint of some mining projects. However, some authors discuss the insufficient integration of such aspects, specifying the difficulty in LCA to compare systems with different annual disturbed land area (underground vs surface mining) or to potentially underestimate the effect of land quality (Yellishetty *et al.*, 2009; Awuah-Offei and Adekpedjou, 2011). For instance, Islam *et al.*, (2002) address these gaps, using remote-sensing technology to better integrate mining-related land use changes in LCA.
<table><caption>Table 4 Synthetic review of the main risk-based and impact-based methodologies presented in this chapter and their main features. For each methodology, a qualitative score is given whether it shows: a poor, moderate, or good, suitability to the corresponding feature. The green areas represent the features that specifically feat in the considered methodology</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3">Features</th><th colspan="10">Methodologies</th></tr><tr><th colspan="5">A</th><th colspan="3">B</th></tr><tr><th>HAZO<br>P</th><th>FMEA/<br>C</th><th>What-<br>if</th><th>PH<br>A</th><th>HACC<br>P</th><th>FT<br>A</th><th>ET<br>A</th><th>ESI<br>A</th><th>LC<br>A</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>System approach</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>••</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Standardized</td><td>••</td><td>••</td><td>••</td><td>••</td><td>••</td><td>••</td><td>••</td><td>•</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Risk-based</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>••</td><td>••</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td>Top-down</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>✓</td><td>•</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Bottom-up</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>•</td><td>✓</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Quantitative</td><td>✓</td><td>•••</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Method<br>features</td><td colspan="5">Applied to all projects</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Scenario-based</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>••</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Decision-making<br>support</td><td colspan="3">••</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Uniform terminology</td><td colspan="3">••</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Dynamic</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Multi-actor<br>Adaptable to available<br>data</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td></tr><tr><td>Type of risk</td><td colspan="5">Chronic</td><td colspan="3">••</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Accidental</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Positive impacts</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Negative impacts</td><td colspan="3">••</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Type of impacts<br>considered</td><td colspan="5">Inbound impacts</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Outbound impacts</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Indirect impacts</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Cumulative impacts</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td>Scale of impacts</td><td colspan="5">On-site impacts</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">Off-site impacts</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Rendering</td><td colspan="5">Graphical</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr><tr><td></td><td colspan="5">GIS adaptable</td><td colspan="3">•</td><td>•</td><td>•</td></tr></tbody></table>

Legend: qualitative suitability to meet the corresponding feature

<table><tr><td rowspan="2">n/a No information</td><td>• Absent or very low suitability</td><td>••• Good suitability</td></tr><tr><td>•• Moderate suitability</td><td>✓ Feature fitted</td></tr></table>
Conclusion

Mining is an inherently interdisciplinary pursuit (Lechner et al., 2017) that reflects a socio-technical system presenting complex interactions between humans and various technical processes at different spatio-temporal scales. This first chapter reviews and details the three main concepts that this thesis aims to address for the development of a risk assessment methodology of mining projects at the territory level. To do so, the main features of mining activities are here presented and defined, highlighting the contributions that mining can achieve within the territory, i.e. a socio-ecological system, where such activities are performed. Such potential contributions are defined as risks (ISO, 2008) that might be positive or negative, whether the mining project generates respectively opportunities or losses that might alter the socio-ecological spheres of the territory where it is located. Several risk and impact assessment methods are presented in order to underline the advantages and limitations of their application within the mining sector at broader spatial scales.

As mentioned, mining is a matter of land planning and public policies. Risk assessment methodologies can play an important complementary tool to support the development and comparison of strategies for the management of mining territories that overcome the sphere of the mining project alone. In order to do so, these methodologies need to account at the same time for the technical and operational specificities of mining projects and the plurisciplinarity of the territorial footprint of mining. Nevertheless, decision-making support purposes require an easy operationalization that should be guaranteed by the adaptability of the methodology to the available data, its spatialization and the homogeneous structure of its results that allows an easy understanding and communication.
## Chapter 2. Objectives of the thesis and development of a methodology via the application on a case-study

Given the general state of the art concerning risk management in the mining sector and the main shortcomings reviewed in Chapter 1, this study aims to propose an original approach to support the analysis of potential scenarios of mining development **at the territory level**. To do so, a specific methodological framework is developed and adapted to address existing shortcomings while simultaneously addressing operational needs to support decision-makers, mining operators, and civil society for land-planning purposes. Pertinent questions to be addressed are:

- What are the risks related to mining and what are their driving factors based on the diversity of techniques employed?

- If risk analysis is related to territory and project management, is it possible to integrate the variability of mining projects and their risks into decision-making processes at the territory level?

- Then, is it possible to perform and compare sector-based – rather than project-based – scenarios of mining projects at larger territorial scales, according to their level of risk?

In this chapter, the main philosophy behind our approach and the objectives of our study are presented. To meet such objectives, the theoretical framework of the methodology is developed in Section 2. This framework has been developed via a demonstrative application on a case-study (Fig. 9) that has been selected through multiple criteria that will be presented.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9 This study aims to present an original approach to integrate mining projects at the territory level to support land-planning. This implies the development of a methodology via a test application on a case-study</figcaption></figure>

### 1. Our approach and objectives of the study

As mentioned in Chapter 1, mining projects should be considered matters of land-planning and territorial management rather than simple industrial objects. Whether mining should be performed requires political answers rather than scientific ones alone. Hence, this thesis suggests a different way to look at the question and proposes an original approach to develop and compare – based on their level of risk – different mining scenarios to support land-planning strategies at the territory level. The application of this approach depends on a
methodological framework that has been developed based on existing methods and adapted
to the objectives of this thesis. The Section 3 of this chapter presents the structure of this
methodology.

Several territorial mining scenarios (TMSs) can be developed based on general objectives predefined at the territory level by decision-makers, public authorities, etc. (e.g., a given rate of employment or economic incomes or commodity production related to the mining sector, reduced land surfaces available to mining). The comparison of TMSs is based on the development, assessment, and combination of specific risk scenarios. Finally, a global score is given to each TMS based on the assessment of these risk scenarios. This will allow to compare different mining scenarios at the territory level that equally meet the same objectives but potentially present different levels of risk.

It is important to note that the present methodology is not meant to be a substitute for existing methods and techniques that offer more accurate assessments especially for each specific risk related to isolated mining activities on a case-by-case basis.

From a general point of view, this study is intended to:

i) Provide a structured, consistent, and transversal approach based on international standard guiding principles (ISO, 2008) at broader spatial scales;

ii) Classify standardized mining project types to consider the potential coexistence of a great variety of projects – depending on the targeted mining commodity – with different functionalities, mining techniques, and risks at the territory level;

iii) Integrate the socio-ecological vulnerability of territories in which mining activities are performed;

iv) Integrate both the positive and negative risks related to mining projects with their different natures (e.g. technical, environmental, socio-economic, financial);

v) Adapt to the amount and consistency of available qualitative and quantitative data required for the assessment;

vi) Include the involvement of stakeholders' perceptions of risks;

vii) Provide spatial, cartographic renderings for communication with stakeholders and decision-makers; and

viii) Provide an operational tool that might be integrated into decision-making methodologies.
## 2. Theoretical development of the methodological framework

Fig. 10 presents the general structure and flow of the methodological framework developed in this study. Because the notion of risk, and, more generally, the field of risk assessment and management, are particularly affected by vague and fuzzy vocabulary (e.g. “hazard”, “danger”, “accident”, “risk”, “impact”, “consequence”; Serraino, 2014; Matteini et al., 2018), the initial step (Step 0) of the methodology aims to develop and formalize a common terminology (see the Glossary) to facilitate the extensive application of the methodology. The methodology involves four main steps (Steps 1–4) that are adapted to the general risk assessment procedure suggested by ISO 31 000: system definition, risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. However, for each step, specific tasks are proposed in order to adapt the methodology to the objectives depending on, for example, the variability of mining project types and their risks, the territorial scale of the assessment, and stakeholder involvement. A final step is included to compare and discuss the assessed mining scenarios developed at the territory scale. In the following subsections, each step is described in detail.

### 2.1 Step 1: System(s) definition and boundary conditions

A system is defined as any set of connected processes and resource quantities (Rueter, 2013). Mining projects are complex systems because of the interactions of different socio-technical components at different spatial and temporal scales. Therefore, they cannot be adequately understood without a description of intermediate structural interactions (Gotts et al., 2018). A structured understanding of the different types of mining projects and the adequate characterization of their spatial dimensions and specific features (e.g. annual production, soil footprint, chemicals used) is therefore critical to risk assessment (Lechner et al., 2017).

As mentioned, mining risk assessments must include both spatial and temporal assessments through multidisciplinary and geographically representative” frameworks (Kelly et al., 2013; Blair and Buytaert, 2016; Fernandes et al., 2016). For this reason, the first step of our methodology involves the definition of the boundary conditions (e.g. Where? When? With who?) and the conceptual modelling of:

- a **mining system**, representing one or more mining project types located in a given territory; and

- a **territory system**, which is the wider socio-ecological context of the mining system (e.g. a municipality, a river basin, region, country).

The link between these two systems and their relative risks have three fundamental dimensions that concern their spatial occurrence and extent, their perception, and their temporal manifestation. In the following paragraphs, three sub-steps are presented: the specification of these three fundamental dimensions, the definition of the mining and territory systems, and the definition of the TMSs to be considered during the assessment.
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10 Flow chart of the methodology developed for the application of the approach proposed in this thesis. The boxes in dark blue indicate the corresponding chapters in this manuscript.</figcaption></figure>

### a) Multi-scale, multi-perspective, and temporal boundaries of the methodology

Concerning the **spatial dimension** of mining and territory systems, the definition of spatial boundaries and assessment scales is crucial because it influences which variables can be considered exogenous vs. endogenous (Filatova et al., 2016). A scale can be defined as “the window through which the investigator chooses to view the world” (Marceau, 1999): in this case, it is the spatial dimension at which entities, patterns, and processes are observed and characterized. From the mining project to the territorial scale, risk assessments gain complexity
because multiple levels of processes, interactions, perceptions, and interests must be considered (Auyang, 1999, Zurlini et al., 2006).

The spatial variability of risk is acknowledged in the methodology varying systems' functions, performances, and components at each scale. Five general geographical scales can be considered (from micro to global scales) (Meentemeyer, 1989), each representing a specific spatial unit (e.g. structure, project, municipality, river basin; Fig. 11). For instance, within a mining project, risks could be identified and assessed at the scale of individual structures (e.g. tailings dams, waste rock piles, excavation pits) or at the scale of the entire mine site. Similarly, the territory system could include a city, a water catchment, a region, etc.: at each scale, the results of risk assessments will change.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11 General spatial scales considered by the present methodology. The five main categories can include a great range of sub-categories. In the case of mining projects, the smallest unit is the geotechnical structure. Socio-ecological sub-categories refer to French administrative divisions.</figcaption></figure>

Since the concept of risk itself has an implicit subjective connotation, the **multi-perspective dimension** of risk assessment is a key-element of our methodology. Indeed, human nature, both individual and collective, has a considerable influence on the results of mining project risk assessments through perceptions, beliefs, values, and biases (Voinov et al., 2016; Gotts et al., 2018). The variability of risk perception and the existence of various, often conflicting objectives requires consideration of the various actors involved in spatial management (Mehdizadeh, 2012), particularly in the mining sector; the contrary would be regrettable from scientific and governance points of view (Gotts et al., 2018).

The multi-perspective nature of our methodology takes the form of so-called "participatory modeling" (McLellan et al., 2009; Blair and Buytaert, 2016; Voinov et al., 2016), i.e. the general and pluridisciplinary integration of stakeholders's perspectives during each phase of the development and application of the methodology. Stakeholders' perspectives can be integrated in different ways (e.g. model design, validation and refinement, interviews, data sharing, risk weighting surveys).

Finally, with regard to the **temporal dimension** of the methodology, interactions between system components are continuously changing due to feedbacks and internal and/or external factors (Schulze et al., 2018). Hence, mining risk assessments must dynamically account for temporal variations of mining activities and of the territory in which they are
performed, and how these variations affect the nature, probability, and intensity of risks (Kelly *et al.*, 2013; Domingues *et al.*, 2017): i.e. risks evolve because the elements that trigger risk events evolve, as well as their consequences and the vulnerability of the territory.

Therefore, two temporal sub-dimensions are integrated in the methodology. The first, intrinsic to the mining system, refers to the different mining phases selected for the assessment (Fig. 2). The second, intrinsic to the territory system, involves consideration of larger territorial changes over time that might influence the results of the assessment (e.g. demographic growth, increase of population vulnerability, climate change).

b) Conceptual modeling of the mining and territory systems

The first phase of the methodology involves the definition of the **mining system** and the territorial spatial units chosen for the assessment. The purpose of this phase is to describe the main functions of each system, the performances needed to achieve those functions, and the system components that guarantee those performances. Fig. 12 shows the technical, operational, and socio-ecological performances of a mining system as considered both as a business and a development project. Concerning the mining system, this first step can be achieved through the development of standardized mining project types with specific features and characteristics (e.g. surface vs. underground mines, large- vs. small-scale mines) (Fig. 12). System components have specific properties (variable or constant) that may affect their performance. For instance, Durucan *et al.*, (2006) subdivide the mining system into three subsystems for life-cycle assessments: extraction and production, mineral processing, and waste handling (Fig. 3).

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12 Conceptual representation of the causal modeling of the spatial systems considered in the approach</figcaption></figure>

Regarding the **territory system**, as mentioned above, each spatial unit from the municipality to the global scale is considered as a socio-ecological system (SES) (Fig. 11). Therefore, regardless of the territorial spatial unit chosen (e.g. water catchment, region), the main functions of a SES are here defined as the support of human well-being and the delivery of ecosystem services. As discussed in Chapter 1, sustainable development goals (SDGs) are integrated within the methodology to represent the socio-economic (e.g. poverty and hunger reduction, education, sanitation) and environmental (e.g. climate actions, soil and water protection) performances expected from a territory system. As shown in Fig. 13, the mining
system is thus included within the territory system and can positively or negatively contribute to its performances. The definition of these two systems is a key-step in developing the territorial mining scenarios and the risk scenarios that will be assessed and compared at the end of the methodology.

### c) Definition of territorial mining scenarios and fictional mining project siting

The main purpose of the methodology is to compare different scenarios for mining development at the territory level. Each **territorial mining scenario (TMS)** is developed based on stakeholders' (decision-makers, public authorities, civil society, etc.) objectives for a given territory (e.g. increased employment or mining royalties, increased mine production, reduced mining land-use), which must be preliminarily defined. As an example, let us assume that decision-makers in a given territory aim to develop a mining sector that would produce at least 1 million tons of copper per year. Based on the first step of the methodology, two types of copper mining projects are defined: type A, surface mining producing 400,000 t/year, and type B, underground mining producing 150,000 t/year. Once the territorial objectives are defined, it is possible to estimate how many mining projects of one of more types should be considered in the simulated risk assessment for each TMS. For instance, three TMS could be considered in the mentioned example:

- 1 type-A and two type-B projects;

- 2 type-A and four type-B projects, or;

- 7 type-B projects.

These three TMSs meet the predefined objective approximately at the same level. However, the associated global risks might vary based on the specific type of mining project(s).

For each scenario, the corresponding number and types of mining projects are located on fictional sites within the chosen territory system (e.g. a river basin, region, or country). This **fictional siting** can be based on different criteria (e.g. localization of geological deposits, authorized areas for mining, distance from urban areas or protected sites).
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13. Integration of a mining system within a larger SES. For each system, a set of functions and performances are indicated. The general performances of the SES represent the SDGs. Because the mining system is part of the conceptualized territorial system, each territorial sub-system contributes to the overall performance of the territory system</figcaption></figure>
## 2.2 Step 2: Risk identification

Risk identification is the process of identifying, recognizing, and describing risks and their causes and consequences (ISO, 2008), and is a non-exhaustive process that is updated during the entire assessment. Risk identification may be performed using a range of tools and methods, such as interviews, Delphi's method, brainstorming, literature and historical data reviews, surveys, focus groups, questionnaires (Rozas-Vasquez et al., 2017; Holzer et al., 2018; Sahle et al., 2019), meetings and workshops, participatory modeling, theoretical analysis, and stakeholder needs assessments (Chinbat, 2011; Ioppolo et al., 2012; Moura et al., 2017; Oryomowska and Sobkowicz, 2017; Guo et al., 2018). The results of such risk assessments consist of a database of identified risks that can be classified depending on their nature, causes and consequences, or multiple criteria defined by the modeler (Mehdizadeh et al., 2013).

Once the risks have been reliably identified, it is important to understand the mechanisms triggering each risk event. More importantly, a first conceptual and descriptive analysis should associate each risk to the type of mining project considered. Assessments of multiple mining projects at the territory level therefore require clear distinctions between, for instance, surface mining projects, underground mining projects, and combinations thereof. Each type of activity should be associated with different identified risks.

## 2.3 Step 3: Risk analysis and risk scenario development

The TMS are compared based on their level of risk. Therefore, two distinguished **risk scenarios** are developed based on the identified risks and associated to each TMS. Therefore, the TMS will be comparable based on the assessment and combination of the final scores of these risk scenarios. Our approach considers risk scenarios of two different conditions: the ordinary (RSo) and accidental operating conditions (RSa) of a mining project (Fig. 14). The assessment of “ordinary risks” will cover a wide range of activities related to the standard operational conditions required to achieve mine performances and functions. These risks – that can be assimilable to the notion of “chronic” risk” or “nuisance”– typically have less important consequences, especially for the project itself, but a higher probability of occurrence because they are necessary and inherent to mining activities (e.g. a given surface will be deforested for site development). Nevertheless, according to the definitions given in Chapter 1 and in the Glossary, these events are not properly a risk, since their occurrence is certain. What is uncertain is the occurrence of their consequences. For instance, a mine site implies inexorably the deforestation of a given surface, which might have consequences on climate regulation, biodiversity or landscape quality. Despite the assessment should focus rather on these latter consequences, which are uncertain, in this study we choose to include certain events as well, in order to distinguish the normal and anormal operating conditions of a mining project. Indeed, in the second case, “accidental risks” are considered as unexpected risk events to the mining operator that switch ordinary operating conditions into “extraordinary”. Such events have a lower probability of occurrence – they might be even rare – but their consequences can
be considerably high, both for the mining project and the socio-ecological system in which it
exists (e.g. explosions, dam failures, chemical spills).

Both RSo and RSa can be conceptually represented in different ways to comprehend both (1) how risks occur (causes) and affect systems' components (consequences) and (2) how systems may respond to risks through proactive (risk prevention) or reactive (mitigation) safety measures. A simple, well-constructed conceptual scheme can be sufficient to describe such interactions. A method often used to assess such accidental events is the Bow-Tie diagram where causes and consequences trees are developed around an initial central event (ICE) (see Chapter 1).

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14 Conceptual flowchart illustrating the development of Territorial Mining Scenarios (TMSs), including the fictional siting of different mining project types. Two categories of risk scenarios (RSo and RSa) are then developed for each TMS, allowing further assessment in order to obtain a final global score for each TMS based on risk analysis.</figcaption></figure>

## 2.4 Step 4: Spatialized risk assessment – probability, consequences, and vulnerability

Step 4 involves the qualitative or quantitative evaluation of each risk scenario (Fig. 15). As risk is defined as the product of the probability of an event's occurrence and its consequences, risk assessments must inexorably estimate both.

**Consequence assessment** involves different sub-steps. According to the proposed methodology, a “consequence” is defined by the conjunction of two intrinsic elements: the identification/estimation of impacted areas and the assessment of the socio-ecological vulnerability of the territory. Therefore, this step implies:

- The identification of the **impacted areas**, defined as the areas where the consequences of a risk event are manifested, whether they are mappable or not. They are areas where positive or negative modifications to the mining and territorial systems' performances occur. The methodology distinguishes between the zones directly impacted by the physical consequences of risk events (e.g. the area contaminated by a chemical spill) and those secondarily (indirectly) affected by such direct impacts (e.g. areas where drinkable water is diminished due to the spill).
- The **vulnerability assessment** proposed in our methodology involves the identification of the human (e.g. individuals, collectivities, technical infrastructures) and natural assets (e.g. natural reserves, soil and water resources, biodiversity) located within the territory and the assessment of their susceptibility to be positively or negatively affected by risk events. Because the proposed methodology must be operational and immediately applicable to counterbalance decision-making needs, vulnerability is estimated through "vulnerability indicators". Indicators provide a reasonably simple tool that allows the analysis and communication of complex ideas. As mentioned in Chapter 1, vulnerability indicators might be assessed via a great range of methods and tools (e.g. direct biophysical measurements, laboratory analyses, numerical and empirical modelling, expert-based estimations, bibliographic reviews). A synthesis of the applications of vulnerability indicators is given in Appendix 3 showing the object, the assessment methods used and whether they concern the mining sector or address sustainability issues. According to Bell and Morse (2008), vulnerability indicators should be simple, relevant, easy to interpret, minimally redundant, and useful for communication with the non-scientific public. For each vulnerability indicator, an assessment methodology must be pre-defined, if not already available, and the resulting values must be compared to reference situations or threshold values (Morel et al., 2015; Banos Gonzalez et al., 2016). The definition of threshold values is essential, as it inexorably influences the outputs of the assessment. Available thresholds can be found in international standards, such as those proposed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC, 2007), the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), or national or international legislation. For instance, the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (2014) suggests specific standards for the mining sector. In other cases, thresholds can be developed through stakeholder involvement or expert input (Kelly et al., 2013; Gotts et al., 2018).

**Probability assessments** must consider all the factors that are likely to trigger one or more risk events. The estimation of probability is often integrated into several risk assessment methods and tools of variable complexity depending, for instance, on the level of technical detail required and the available data. A great number of physical, numerical, or statistical models might be used to determine the probability of a system's failure, and the chosen method depends mainly on the amount of data required. For instance, when few data are available, the probability of occurrence might be estimated through statistical assessments of coefficients derived from historical databases, expert-based assumptions, or empirical estimates of the "susceptibility" to system failure and risk occurrence. At this stage, the probability assessment allows to obtain the overall value of risk for each risk scenario, through risk tables or maps, which might require the coupling of GIS layers with aggregation results through non-cartographic methods (e.g. tables, lists). In such cases, the combination method considerably influences the results.

A further step aims to fully integrate stakeholder' perspective and involves **consequence weighting** by the concerned actors. This weighting can be applied via simple qualitative data or
more complex, quantitative data gathered through different methods (e.g. surveys, questionnaires, brainstorming, Delphi method). For instance, a first approach might involve a questionnaire to estimate simple semi-quantitative scores in order to weight each consequence. This method is included in this thesis and it is detailed in Chapter 9.

During the assessment, multiple stages of **data aggregation** are performed. Concerning the vulnerability assessment, once the indicators are assessed, the methodology integrates all cartographic and non-cartographic layers representing such indicators to obtain an overall socio-ecological vulnerability value. The aggregation is performed first to combine positive and negative risks for each risk scenario and then, to combine the final scores for the RSo and RSa and obtain a **global score for each TMS**. The choice of aggregation method is extremely delicate because it influences the final results and might under- or over-estimate the consequence assessment. Current existing methods involve simple (e.g. sum, maximal value, arithmetic or geometric means) (Mehdizadeh et al., 2012) or more complex aggregations (e.g. weighted means, Fuzzy Weighted Average), and sometimes integrate decision-making tools (e.g. TOPSIS, VIKOR, ELECTRE, AHP) (Mahdevari et al., 2014; Govindan and Jepsen, 2016; Kasap and Subasi, 2017; Gupta et al., 2018). In some cases, stakeholders are integrated as well (e.g. plurality rule by voting). Once the vulnerability layers are aggregated, the resulting outputs can be coupled with the results from impacted area assessments to obtain the final global consequence assessment, for which GIS tools are demonstrably effective.

## 2.5 Step 5: Comparison of different mining scenarios based on risk assessments

The final objective of our approach is to compare different TMS for land-planning purposes (Fig. 15). Hence, the utility of the methodology lies in its application and reiteration to a broader range of TMS involving different mining project types and fictional siting. After the overall scores of each risk scenarios are evaluated (RSo and RSa), they are combined to obtain the global score of the corresponding TMS: each TMS considered can then be compared and discussed based on its global level of risk (Fig. 15).

The comparison of the assessed TMSs might take different forms (e.g. from simply constructed discussions, conceptual models and diagrams, and tables, to the integration of more sophisticated decision-making tools such as TOPSIS, ELECTRE, or AHP). The number of reiterations and the number of TMSs depend on the above-defined objectives and land-planning goals.
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Figure 15 Conceptual flowchart of the scenarios assessed and compared by the methodology. Different options are available to meet one or more objectives, as represented by the development of different TMS. Each option is evaluated based on RSo and RSa criteria.</figcaption></figure>

### 3. Criteria used for the selection of a case-study

In order to test our approach and refine the developed methodology, we applied it on an example case-study: the exploitation of gold in French Guiana (FG). It is important to underline that the application of this approach and its methodological framework might be extended to other cases and commodities as it will be discussed in Chapter 11.

The selection of a case-study is vital in order to operationalize the proposed approach and test its methodology, highlighting its gaps, its advantages and further improvements to be made. Therefore, the choice should follow specific criteria that allows to integrate the characteristics and the objectives that the methodology is intended to meet.

Indeed, such criteria must show the feasibility, the utility and the holistic nature of the methodology. Concerning the territory system, they are related to:

a) The development of growing pression from anthropic activities due to global changes (e.g. urbanization, industrial activities, land-use changes)

b) A high and sufficiently homogeneous socio-ecological vulnerability of the territory system;

c) If possible, the availability of sufficiently reliable data to describe the territory and to perform the assessment.
Finally, concerning the mining system, these criteria imply the presence of:

a) Coexisting mining projects distributed on the whole territory, involving various sizes, forms and mining techniques;

b) Public concerns and debates related to mining and land-planning in order to develop potential future development strategies. During the *Grand Débat National* which united Overseas authorities and French Presidency of the Republic, the President of the *Collectivité Territoriale de Guyane*, Rodolphe Alexandre, controversially declared that gold mining can be a prior driver for the development of FG and that it ought to debate and address the question of gold mining development in FG territory.

c) If possible, sufficiently reliable and available data to describe the mining system and to perform the assessment.

d) If possible, only for the demonstrative purposes of our study, one exploited mineral or metal in order to make the comparison easier different scenarios;

Therefore, the case of gold mining in FG has been selected. As it will be presented in the conclusion of this chapter, the chosen case-study meet multiple of the predefined criteria mentioned above because of the social, ecological and political territorial footprint of gold mining, the variability of mining techniques involved, the characteristics of this territory and the potential development strategies currently discussed. The following sections will present an overview of gold mining across the world with a specific zoom on the Guiana Shield. Finally, FG and gold mining sector in FG are described.

## Conclusion

This chapter had the purpose to present the objectives of the original approach proposed in this thesis and how this approach is operationalized. The main points to consider are the following:

* The proposed approach aims to compare different mining scenarios according to their level of risk, to support land-planning strategies of mining regions;

* The approach is operationalized through the development of a methodology;

* The methodology is applied for a demonstration on gold mining sector in FG.

The next chapters will present and describe the mining (i.e. gold mining) and the territory systems (i.e. French Guiana at the river basin level), to show how they fit these criteria. The next parts II and III represent the test application of the methodology.
# Part II – Application on gold mining in French Guiana:
definition of the systems and development of the
scenarios
The methodology presented in Chapter 2 is developed via a demonstrative application of a case-study which is shown in Parts II and III of this thesis. Part II begins the application of the proposed approach on the gold mining sector in French Guiana (FG). The first step of the risk assessment process is the acknowledgment of the studied system. This Part II is intended to present and define the territory and mine systems chosen for the application of the methodology. Then, these two systems are combined for the development of territorial mining scenarios (TMS) that will be compared based on their level of risk. Therefore, Part II will conclude with the identification of multiple risks and, based on them, the development of two different risk scenarios. The assessment of these risks and, thus, of the related TMS is given in Part III.

# Chapter 3. The territory system: French Guiana and Mana river basin

Chapter 3 presents the territory system on which the methodology is applied. Because of the territorial dimension of our approach, a brief but general overview of FG must be given. Then, a smaller spatial unit is chosen at the river basin scale and its human and ecological features described to give a perspective of the socio-ecological vulnerability of the territory.

## 1. General presentation of French Guiana and its specificities

FG is a French Overseas Territory and Department located in the northern hemisphere, near the equator, on the northern Atlantic coast of South America. With a surface of approximately 84,000 km², it is the largest department of France – the only one in South America – and the larger outermost region within the European Union (EU) (Papy, 1955). FG is at approximately 7,000 km far from Metropolitan France and it is located between the rivers of Maroni and Oyapock which separate it respectively from Suriname and Northern Brazil (Fig. 16). Its features concern a transversal range of aspects which must account for:

- Its localization within the Amazon rainforest, in a sensitive region from a hydrological, geological and environmental point of view (Galochet and Morel, 2015)

- Its colonial history that reflects a currently complex political, economic and socio-cultural context and results in a strong dependence towards Metropolitan France through public policies that address the socio-economic and ecological challenges of the territory (e.g. exponential demographic growth, land-use conflicts, high non-employment rates) (Barret, 2001; Piantoni, 2009; Oder, 2011).
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>Figure 16 Simplified map of FG showing the main environmental and human features.</figcaption></figure>

## 1.1. Environment of French Guiana

The geo-environmental context of FG is no different from its neighbouring countries and is strictly related to the geological settings of the Guiana Shield and its equatorial climate.
- **Geology** of FG is presented and discussed by a wide range of scientific literature (Delor et al., 2003b; Milesi et al 2003; Cassard et al., 2008) and grey papers (Milesi and Picot, 1995; Degay et al 1997; Théveniaut et al., 2011). Two greenstone belts of low sedimentary and volcanic units cross the territory from west to east in its northern and southern regions. It is mainly in these formations that gold mineralization took place. A simplified geological map of FG is available in Appendix 4.

- An equatorial-wet **climate** due to its position within the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Because of its position, FG has (low pressures, average temperatures at ~26,5 °C and variable rainfall intensity between 1,700 to 5,000 l/m² per year). (Barret, 2001; Lecomte et al., 2011). (www.meteoguyane.fr).

- A territory divided between the coastal plain, called "lowlands" (4% of the territory) and the inner regions, or "uplands" (96% of the territory) and **reliefs** globally moderate with some punctual sloping areas (the Inini-Camopi mountains, reaching 850 m, hills, inselbergs).

- **Hydrogéologic and hydrologic resources** divided in several groundwater bodies (85,000 km² in confined aquifers) and a highly dense and tufted network of surface water bodies (almost 20 000 km of length) spread across the territory (Barret, 2001; Asconit, 2013; DEAL, 2013). Actual renewable water resources (i.e. the total amount of a country's water resources) per habitant in FG are estimated to be more than 700,000 m³/year (less than 3,500 m³/year in Metropolitan France) (OEG, 2016 www.eauguyane.fr). Surface water streams are mainly affected by the release and deposits of important quantities of total suspended solids (TSS) (Barret, 2001), due to natural or anthropic causes, including gold mining. Finally, the only plane surface water body in FG is the Petit-Saut hydroelectric dam reservoir (Fig. 16). More details about Petit Saut and its role in vectorizing, for instance, mercury-related risks can be found in Sissakian (1992); Calmont (2001); Muresan (2009), Pestana et al., (2019).

- **Soils** very heterogeneous, with a great range of properties. The predominant soil types, as shown by a simplified soil map provided by Blancaneaux, (2001) (Appendix 4), concern poorly developed soils, podzols, hydromorphic soils (mainly located in the lowlands) and a great variety of oxisols and ultisols occupying ancient lowlands and mainly the uplands. The main common features of these soils zones are their high degree of weathering, their sensibility to erosion, their low fertility and a mostly acidic pH. (Turenne, 1973; Betsch, 1998). However, soil resources in FG should be more pertinently be acknowledged.

- More than 90% of the territory covered by tropical rainforest (Cassard et al., 2008; De Santi et al., 2016), making of FG a world-widely recognized high-biodiversity wilderness area within the Amazon rainforest region (Galochet and Morel, 2015). Indeed, **biodiversity** is maybe the environmental component the most discussed in FG, especially when it comes to gold mining-related impacts. Various compilations of the floristic and faunistic richness of FG are available (Barret, 2001; DEAL, 2014; ONF, 2015; Stier et al., 2020). The ecological patrimony of FG encouraged public authorities to
create, during the years, a great number of protected areas, including three RAMSAR zones, 170 ZNIEFF areas and one Amazonian Park (Appendix 4) (Chaneac and Legrand, 2009; DEAL, 2014; Galochet and Morel, 2015; CTG, 2016).

## 1.2. History, society and economy in French Guiana

Gold mining affects the socio-ecological dynamics in FG and represents an activity that shaped the human component of FG, as it has been widely deepened by Jebrak *et al.*, (2020). Therefore, risks related to gold mines vary considerably based on the features of the societal context where they are performed.

### 1.2.1. Human societies and history

Almost all the human settlements of FG concern the coastal area, with one first main cluster in the capital Cayenne, but also Kourou or Mana – and the riverine regions of the Maroni – with the second main cluster of Saint-Laurent du Maroni – and the Oyapock. FG has one of the highest demographic growth rates in France (Millet, 2018). According to a report of the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee), population increased from 27 863 in 1954 to 269 352 in 2016 (Raimaud, 2018) and may reach more than 500 000 people in 2050 (Léon, 2010; Demougeot and Baert, 2019). Cayenne more than tripled its surface between 1946 and 1998 (Barret, 2001).

Because of its history, FG population is extremely diversified. It mainly includes Creoles (i.e. people born in the colonial territory), French Metropolitans, *Bushinengue* (i.e. descendants of black slaves carried from Africa to the colony), six groups of indigenous people of America but also important communities of Brazilian, Hmong (mainly from Laos), Chinese, Javanese, Lebanese and Indo-Caribbean people (Joshua Project, 2015). Such multi-culturalism is discussed by several authors (Papy 1955; Jolivet, 1971; Collomb, 1999; Fouck, 2000; Elfort, 2010) and it poses important challenges for the uniform application of public policies and land-use regulations (Grenand *et al.*, 2006). The cohabitation of these different cultures might be on occasions the source of social tension concerning land property rights. Indeed, French administration historically took over the Native Americans and progressively transformed the territory into a “plantation model” where a process of “francization” of local people was performed through Christianity and property rights (Barret, 2001). At the same time, the slavery system shaped the population into “white” Europeans, Native Americans, African slaves and Creoles. Such dynamics must be considered at the scale of the three Guianas, since it produced internal migration flows of Native Americans and African slaves. For instance, the rebellions of Africans against slavery led to the development in FG and Suriname of new black communities (the *Bushinengue*). In 1848, slavery was abolished, and French administration continued the francization of the newly-freed slaves as sort of “social promotion” (Barret, 2001). If FG was a well-known destination for political prisoners since the French Revolution, under the 1854 “deportation decree” by Napoleon III, FG became officially a penal colony,
leading to the construction of several labour camps, called "bagnes". Massive groups of people France were sent from the Metropolis to FG, as deported or as part of the colonial administration. After the beginning of gold exploitation in 1855, the first "gold rush" added more migration flows across the region and the reduction of Native Americans at the beginning of 1900. IIWW and the economic crisis generated the worsening of living and social conditions in FG. Finally, FG became a French department in 1946 (again, after the short period in 1797) as integral part of French Republic and submitted to the same regulatory framework of the Metropolis.

The demographic rate and the high diversification of FG society is due as well to these historical conditions (Piantoni, 2009). For instance, in 1999 more than one third of the population was foreigner. Two main factors are related to such migratory flows: firstly, the physical fuzziness of FG boundaries with Surinam and Brazil (Barret, 2001), leading to massive flows, especially of illegal miners. Secondly, the gross domestic product (GDP) is a half lower than in Metropolitan France (Piantoni, 2009; Insee, 2017). As the other French Overseas territories, FG relies on public transfers from Metropolitan France which create an "artificial prosperity generating internal freezing and exacerbating nationalist identity reactions" (Barret, 2001). Therefore, FG has higher living standard and regional GDP than the neighboring countries (IEDOM, 2014) making it more attractive to the neighboring communities. Moreover, several European aids are provided for the region (IEDOM, 2016). Therefore, FG is the destination for several migrants seeking for better opportunities, including illegal gold mining.

### 1.2.2. Short overview of the main economic activities

In 2016, gold mining was representing approximately 1% of the GDP of FG, with 500 declared employees while the informal gold mining sector is up to 10 000 estimated workers (IDEOM, 2016). The presentation of the other different economic activities in FG is available on the portal of French institute for the statistical and economic studies (www.insee.fr). A general overview is also presented by Barret (2001), IEDOM (2016) and in a recently published report by Deloitte (2018) that compares different future scenarios of economic development in FG.

The unemployment rate in FG was up to more than 23% in 2016 (IDEOM, 2016), one of the highest in France. If most of the jobs opportunities are provided by the public administration sector, representing 41% of the total employment and 35% of the global GDP, other several activities play an important role in the economic dynamics of FG. A short list will present the main sectors:

- Agriculture and farming: more than 30 000 hectares in FG are destined to agriculture (Deloitte, 2018). The traditional "slash-and-burn" agriculture is still the most practiced and covers almost 80% of the total agricultural surface (Demaze and Manusset, 2008; Deloitte, 2018).
- Fishing is also an important sector even if currently illegal fishing activities produce three times more than the legal ones (Deloitte, 2018).

- Wood production provides around 500 direct jobs (CTG et al., 2018) and represent an important potential for FG.

- Construction represents 8% of the total value added in FG (IEDOM, 2016).

- Industrial activities, other than gold mining, cover a wide range of sectors such as the chemical transformation, food production, transport, energy, etc.

- After the development in 1968 of the Guiana Space Centre (CSG), space industry has been representing a boosting factor both for the city of Kourou, where the population raised from 3000 to more than 25 000 people in 50 years but also for the entire region (Charrier et al., 2017).

- The energetic sector as well provides important outcomes since more than 64% of the total electricity is produced through renewable resources (CTG, 2016).

- Tourism counts approximately 100 000 visitors per year in FG, mostly for business purposes (Deloitte, 2018).

- Research and education count different structures in FG (INRAE, CNRS, IRD, SEAS) and one University in Cayenne, with more than 3 000 students in 2012 (Insee, 2014).

## 2. Selection of the spatial scale: Mana river basin

Our study is conducted at the scale of a river basin (RB), the area where all streams drain to a common terminus (Molle et al., 2007). A RB is considered in this study as a territory system, thus as a socio-ecological functional unit that has the capability to provide ecosystem services and regulate human life through the meeting of societal needs (see Chapter 1).

The choice of this scale is due to the significative importance of water management at the river basin in FG where the hydrographic network is considerably dense and plays a key role in the daily life of local population. Furthermore, there is a tight relationship between mining activities – particularly gold mining – and water management, especially under the climatic conditions of FG. The structure of the basin and of the hydrographic network have a strong influence on the functioning of a mining project, starting with the localization of the mine site, its construction and water and waste management (ICMM, 2015). For instance, Kossoff et al., (2014), suggest that the parameters to assess the consequences of a tailings dam failure and the remediations measures to implement, depend on the features of the RB.

Furthermore, the 2015 Carthage database – developed by the French Agency for Biodiversity (Agence Française pour la Biodiversité, AFB) and other services such as SANDRE and the DEAL of FG – distinguishes four spatial units (i.e. region, sector, sub-sector, zone) responding to the needs of hydrographic codification (circular n°91-50, 1991) to support Water Planning and Management Schemes (SDAGE) at the catchment scale. This meets the operational purposes at the territory level proposed by the approach presented in this thesis. The chosen geospatial unit is the hydrographic sector – corresponding to the actual river basins
– which represents a sufficiently wide area to locate multiple mining project types to test and refine the methodology.

## 2.1. *The Mana river basin and its potential representativeness*

FG counts 14 different river basins (RB), which almost correspond to municipal boundaries (Fig. 17). From the West to the East:

- the Maroni RB, the biggest in FG, which exceeds FG regional boundaries and covers an important part of Surinam,

- the Mana RB,

- nine RB usually named "river basins of the central coastline (Organabo, Iracoubo, Sinnamary, Malmanoury, Kourou, Macouria, Cayenne, Mahury, Kaw),

- the Approuague, Ouanary

- the Oyapock RB, which, as the Maroni basin, crosses FG borders and covers a part of the northern region of Amapà, in Brazil.

The choice of the river basin on which applying the approach proposed in this study is based on multiple criteria that consider the geological nature of the basin and the presence of gold deposits, the quantity and quality of mining activities, the presence of important human settlements and environmentally sensitive areas. These criteria aim to select a river basin that shares its features with the other basins and might be representative of FG territory. Hence, our study is focused on the Mana RB which has been chosen since it hosts:

i) One of the most important surfaces of greenstone belt formations, approximately of 4100 km², after the Maroni river and the central coastline basins;

ii) More than 50 documented legal primary and secondary gold deposits, according to the data collected in 2018 (provided by the PTMG) and more than 2000 illegal gold miners which have a considerable impact on water-related resources;

iii) One of the most important clusters of legal mining permits and authorizations currently active;

iv) At least 6 main urban areas, among which, the city of Mana, the 4th most important city of FG by surface, the 8th by population and the 14th by density;

v) Multiple ecological habitats that are common to the whole region of FG, as it can be observed in the catalogue developed by ONF, (2015).
<figure><img src="image_19.png" /><figcaption>Figure 17 Main river water basins in FG (Office de l'Eau, 2015)</figcaption></figure>

Sources: SFRS, MASA 2012, Précédent international n°1, Natural Earth, Commons, TOH 2012, Boisau versants, DÉAL 2014, Cartographie Office de l'Eau de Guyane, 2015

The choice has been mainly driven by discussions with local actors (e.g. public authorities, mining operators and local associations) during the missions that covered the first year and a half of the thesis. Mana RB represents a simple example for the demonstrative application for the methodology developed in this study. By our knowledge, this basin could be considered as representative of FG territory because of the common features previously mentioned. For instance, the application on the Sinnamary basin would have implied a specific focus on the Petit Saut pond, which plays an important role in sediment transportation and Hg methylation. Also, the most upstream zone of the Maroni river is not crossed by greenstone belts and does not represent a mining area. For this reason, it cannot be considered representative. Or else, the selection of the Maroni or Oyapock RB would have imposed the consideration of their transboundary dimension and, thus, a further assessment of gold mining sector in Surinam or in Brazil.

## 2.2. The socio-ecological components of Mana RB

Hereafter, we present the human and ecological specificities of the Mana RB. If such specificities are here only overviewed, they are needed for the assessment of the socio-ecological vulnerability of the basin according to the risk scenarios, developed in Chapter 6. Vulnerability assessment is detailed in Chapter 7. Data have been collected through free interviews and exchanges with the actors presented in Section 1 – which provided multiple spatialized data – field observations, mine visits and surveys, literature reviews, etc. The information has been gathered under various forms: tables, conceptual and descriptive data,
photos, geospatial data for GIS processing (e.g. raster, vector files) etc. The collected data are resumed in Appendix 5.

### 2.2.1 Ecological component

The Mana RB has a surface of approximately 12,200 km² and it is located on the west part of FG. As mentioned, its geology is characterized by the same units of the Guiana Shield. In Fig. 18a, a simplified geological map of Mana RB is provided, with a specific focus on the greenstone belt formations, since gold deposits are mainly localized in these areas.

The ecology of Mana RB is highly diversified as shown and detailed by the habitats catalogue provided by ONF, (2015) (Fig. 18b). Different types of forests are located within the RB and their diversity depends considerably on the relief and type of soils. The relief of Mana RB is moderately low, with a progressive increasing of the elevation towards the uplands and some high "peaks" located in its central-western region, near the Massif Dekou Dekou and in the south (Fig. 18c).

Mana coastal area is the driest with precipitations inferior to 2 meters per year, which supports rice culture, while the rainfall intensifies towards the uplands, with lower values on the western side of the RB (Fig. 18d). Also because of the climatic conditions, the ecological habitats of the basin shelter an important biodiversity and several protection measures have been implemented in order to protect these areas (Fig. 18e): the coastal wetlands classified under the Ramsar Convention, several ZNIEFF areas, a large biological reserve in the north-western part of the RB and finally a part of the Guiana Amazonian Park (PAG) in the south.

Finally, as it is shown in Fig. 18f, the main ecological and protected areas have been integrated within the Departmental Mining Plan (SDOM) which, as mentioned, provides a zoning whether mining is authorized or forbidden.
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Figure 18 Six maps overviewing the ecological components of Mana RB related to the: a) Rainfall intensity; b) Relief; c) Hydrographic network and the main forest ecological habitats classified by ONF (2015); d) Environmental protection measures; e) Simplified geological maps focusing on Greenstone belts formations; f) The Departmental Mining Plan (SDOM)
### 2.2.2 Human component

The Mana RB intersects four different municipalities (Fig. 19): Awala-Yalimapo, Mana, Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni and Saül. These municipalities belong to the Community of Western Municipalities of FG (CCOG), along with other municipalities such as Apatou, Maripasoula, Papaichton, Grand-Santi.

The areas of Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni and Saül, crossed by the RB, are entirely covered by rainforest. The human settlements located within the RB belongs mainly to the municipalities of Mana and, in a very residual part, of Awala-Yalimapo. Therefore, the study of the human components of Mana RB has been focused essentially on the municipality of Mana, which led us to the study of urban planning documents, observations and discussions with local authorities. Most of this general overview is presented by the report of the Agency for Urban Planning and Development of FG (AUDEG, 2018).

From a general point of view, Mana municipality has a surface of 6,520 km². In 2020, almost 12,000 inhabitants (plus approximately 2 000 illegal gold miners) - against less than 5,000 in 1990 (https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/3635065?sommaire=2414232) - are distributed among two main urban clusters: the Bourg of Mana, located at the estuary of Mana river, and the village of Javouhey, more upstream (Fig. 19). As shown by Fig. 19, the rest of the urban agglomerations concerns peri-urban areas, distributed along the main national and departmental roads. This type of unplanned and spontaneous urbanization is an important characteristic of Mana RB which can be peculiar to other municipalities in FG. Nevertheless, it represents an important issue for risk assessment and analysis that will be detailed further.

Mana population is very varied with important rates of Metropolitan French and foreigners (mainly from Surinam). The total of human settlements and activities represents a footprint of approximately 10% of the territory. As shown by Fig.19, the main part of Mana municipality is covered by rainforest. The urban clusters are surrounded by agricultural areas that cover considerable surfaces along the coastline. Indeed, the agricultural potential is relatively important for two main reasons:

- The heterogeneous geopedological context, that will be furtherly detailed,

- The low slopes of important surfaces, which allow the mechanization and access to several areas.

Nevertheless, this potential is restrained to the northern part, leaving the rest of the area to possible forestry activities.

Mana energetic supply is provided by the EDF net installed along the main urban areas, with the potential development of the hydroelectric power plant of Saut Maman-Valentin which would supply approximately 20,000 inhabitants. Several constructions, often illegal, and mainly in unplanned urban areas do not dispose of electricity.
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>Figure 19 The human components associated with Mana RB. The maps show the overlaying municipalities concerned by the considered RB, with a particular focus on Mana municipality and its land-use. The last three maps focus on the urban areas of Mana (Mana Bourg).</figcaption></figure>

## 3. Actors considered and temporal dimension of the application

### 3.1. Presentation of the stakeholders considered in the study

The multi-perspective dimension of our approach involves the integration of as many stakeholders concerned by gold mines in FG as possible. Participation of stakeholders has played a key-role mainly for data gathering and the further definition of risk-weighting coefficients (see Chapter 9).

The actors considered hereafter can be divided in three main categories that are detailed in Table 5: gold mining operators, public authorities and civil society. Continuous and ongoing exchanges with them took place during the whole thesis and concerned particularly: the general acknowledgment of FG and the collecting of semantic and spatialized data for the assessment, the development of gold mine-types, the selection of the river basin for the fictional localization of these projects, risk identification (Chapter 6), the development of the risks scenarios that will be assessed (Chapters 7 and 8) and the multi-perspective weighting of the assessed consequences (Chapter 9).