Introduction

Africa’s mining boom, fuelled by global demand for critical minerals needed for clean energy technologies, poses substantial risks to biodiversity. The continent holds around 30% of global mineral resources but accounts for less than 5% of global extraction, highlighting significant potential for expansion. However, this growth endangers ecosystems and wildlife, especially primates—73% of which are already listed as threatened on the IUCN Red List. All 14 species of African great apes are endangered or critically endangered, and mining intensifies these threats through habitat loss, fragmentation, and pollution. Despite this, mining is often underrepresented in conservation risk assessments due to limited data availability and restricted access to Environmental Impact Assessment findings.

Direct and indirect impacts of mining

Industrial mining exerts both direct and indirect impacts. Direct effects include habitat destruction from excavation, blasting, and vegetation removal, alongside noise and light pollution that disrupt animal communication and behaviour. Pollution from heavy metals and chemicals contaminates soil, air, and water. Indirect effects can extend up to 50 kilometres from mining sites, with deforestation and habitat degradation driven by infrastructure development, such as roads and railways. These developments increase human access, hunting pressure, fire frequency, and disease transmission between humans and apes. Studies from other tropical regions have shown similar large-scale environmental degradation linked to mining activities.

Geographical distribution of mining density in relation to ape density

Mapping data from 17 African countries covering over 1.5 million square kilometres revealed that mining areas often overlap with regions of high ape density, especially in West Africa, Gabon, southern Congo, and southern Cameroon. Central Africa still retains areas of high ape density outside mining zones, whereas in West Africa, many habitats are unprotected and fragmented. The overlap between mining projects and ape populations was strongest in countries like Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Senegal, where land competition is acute.

Mining overlap with high versus low ape density areas

In countries such as Liberia and Sierra Leone, operational and pre-operational mining sites were found more frequently in areas with higher ape densities. When accounting for indirect impacts within a 50-kilometre buffer, five of eight West African nations showed significant overlap between mining zones and dense ape habitats. Central African countries like Gabon and Cameroon exhibited similar patterns, indicating widespread habitat encroachment.

Overlap of ape populations with mining areas

Mining areas and their 50-kilometre buffers overlapped with approximately 34% of Africa’s ape population—around 178,800 individuals—while 3% faced direct impact. The overlap was most pronounced in West Africa, where up to 82% of apes may be directly or indirectly affected. Central Africa hosts fewer mining areas but higher overall ape densities, placing countries such as Gabon and Congo among those with the largest absolute numbers of apes at risk. Alarmingly, 97% of mining areas lack formal ape survey data.

Discussion

The study concludes that the threat of mining to African great apes has been significantly underestimated. It estimates that nearly one-third of the continent’s ape population could face mining-related risks, with the greatest impacts projected in West Africa. The findings highlight deficiencies in data transparency and the need for mining companies to share biodiversity data publicly to facilitate effective conservation planning.

While frameworks such as the Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance and IFC Performance Standard 6 promote responsible mining, implementation gaps persist. The report calls for integrating the “mitigation hierarchy”—avoidance, minimisation, restoration, and compensation—across all mining phases and beyond concession boundaries. It also emphasises that habitat avoidance remains the only effective strategy for preventing ape population decline.

Offsetting residual impacts has shown limited success, with current measures being too short-term to achieve “no net loss” outcomes. Companies and lenders are advised to avoid exploration in critical ape habitats, improve data transparency, and incorporate biodiversity conservation into economic development plans.

Limitations of the approach

The analysis excluded artisanal mining and relied on buffers to estimate indirect impacts, possibly underestimating the total effect. Many pre-operational mining areas may never become active, but the long-term potential remains significant. Despite these limitations, the study provides a robust baseline assessment and stresses the need for systematic, long-term biodiversity monitoring near mining sites.

Conclusion

The research underscores the urgent need for greater environmental accountability in Africa’s expanding mining sector. Enhancing data accessibility, enforcing international conservation standards, and prioritising the protection of high-biodiversity areas are critical steps to mitigate risks to African great apes and ensure mining development aligns with global sustainability goals.