1773 4.3 Environmental The environmental dimension exhibits a clear structural asymmetry between operational management and normative alignment (Table 4). While several areas have structured environmental governance mechanisms in place, the incorporation of sustainability principles based on thresholds remains unequal and, in some areas, limited. Relatively stronger clusters emerge in closure and land rehabilitation, as well as in certain areas of air emissions management. These domains reflect a well-developed architecture of planning instruments, financial assurance mechanisms, and post-operational obligations. Environmental risk is institutionally organized and technically structured, particularly in relation to impact identification, mitigation planning, and long-term site management. Biodiversity and water management display intermediate levels of alignment. Impact assessment procedures and mitigation requirements are present and operationalized through structured management systems. However, protection mechanisms tend to emphasize mitigation and control rather than the articulation of explicit non-negotiable ecological boundaries. The logic is based primarily on impact and compensation, rather than being rooted in clearly defined environmental limits. Mine waste similarly reflects technical regulation and hazard control, yet with limited integration of cumulative or systemic ecological constraints. The standard regulates environmental risk but does not consistently formalize absolute environmental thresholds within its architecture. More pronounced gaps appear in climate and energy. Climate adaptation and alignment with global climate objectives remain weakly integrated, and the energy dimension lacks a clearly structured transitionoriented framework. References to decarbonisation pathways or binding emission trajectories are not integrated into the environmental architecture. The principles of material efficiency and circularity also appear to be relatively underdeveloped. Table 4 – Environmental assessment under the dual-lens framework (IRMA Case) Criterion Operational strength Normative Alignment Structural interpretation Climate & resilience Very Low Very Low Climate weakly integrated; no clear transition framework Biodiversity & ecosystem Moderate Low Impact assessment structured; limited ecological limit setting Water Moderate Low Basin management present; weak ecological limit definition Energy use Low Very Low Technical energy measures; no structured transition pathway Material use Low Very Low Waste regulated; weak circularity integration Closure & land rehabilitation Very High Low Strong planning and financial safeguards; mitigation-focused Mine waste Moderate Very Low Technical hazard control; limited systemic ecological integration Air emissions & noise Moderate-High Low Emission control structured; weak alignment with atmospheric limits
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2