Discussion

Is it possible to reconcile raw materials extraction with nature conservation? In a joint interview, Dr. Andre Baumann, Director of the Baden-Württemberg section of NABU, the Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union, and Dr. Michael Rademacher, Manager Biodiversity and Natural Resources at Heidelberg­Cement, discuss limits and possible ways of achieving this goal.

Dr. Baumann, as an environmentalist, can you in any way approve of quarries’ impact on nature?

	Baumann: That depends. As is the case in other areas, nature conservation encompasses a variety of goals. For example, I cannot approve plans to extract raw materials in areas where we want to protect near-natural forests. On the other hand, it’s known that former quarries can turn into unique habitats for so-called pioneer species. Conflicts are mostly irreconcilable when the habitats that will be affected are very rare or cannot be restored. Alluvial forests are examples of such habitats in Baden-Württemberg. They have to be preserved and protected against extraction. They are
non-negotiable. As far as we’re concerned, these areas are taboo.
Do you see irreconcilable differences here, Dr. Rademacher?

 

Rademacher: Not at all. We also know that natural alluvial forests need to be preserved. They are taboo for us as well, which is why we won’t go near them. However, we are often faced with lesser conflicting goals when dealing with local nature conservation groups and the communities in which we operate. After all, we can’t just pick a location and say “Let’s extract here.” We need to find places that have usable raw materials. Afterward, an environmental impact assessment needs to be made to determine if the raw materials can be extracted
in an environmentally friendly manner. As part of the evaluation, we analyse if the renaturation of the quarries can be carried out in such a way that destroyed habitats will be able to re-emerge after extraction is discontinued.
Baumann: I completely agree with what you say. Often it’s not at all a question of whether to extract, but rather how. And that means extraction must be environmentally compatible, with a view to protecting biodiversity while taking the interests of the stakeholders into account. Over the past few years, HeidelbergCement has endeavoured to engage in a critical dialogue with us on this issue and shown that it is also very much concerned about how raw materials are extracted. Experience shows that the sooner you talk to one another, the better the chance that you’ll avoid conflicts and achieve positive results. Many quarries are now man-made biotopes from which everyone benefits. Does that mean that engaging in a continuous dialogue about its locations is a must for HeidelbergCement? Rademacher: Yes. It’s very important that companies like ours engage in a dialogue with communities and local environmental organisations well in advance and stay in touch. To make this possible, we organise open days, for example, as well as discussion events and school and nature conservation partnerships. Over the years, we have discovered that less conflict arises whenever we promote a dialogue about our sites. I sometimes even advise the person responsible against a project if a planned quarry creates irreconcilable environmental conflicts — for instance, very rare species will be affected or the habitats will be difficult to restore. However, we will fight to realise a project if we believe that we have to extract raw materials at a particular location for business reasons and the project is environmentally compatible. Is the company doing enough to maintain biodiversity? Baumann: I don’t want to create the impression that nature conservation groups are insatiable. But “enough” is a word we rarely use. We do indeed recognise that HeidelbergCement is on the right track here and outperforms other companies from related industries. However, HeidelbergCement will have to continue to pursue this course. Rademacher: And that’s exactly what we’ll do. But I also think that nature conservation groups have an obligation to do more to make people aware that the way former quarries are used is also a form of environmental protection. We know that quarries that are left alone will eventually have a very high level of biodiversity. We have to jointly communicate this finding and make it clear that environmentally-compatible renaturation is a valuable alternative to the use of former quarries for agriculture or forestry. So it looks like there is great unanimity between raw materials extraction and nature conservation? Baumann: Not so fast, though! The devil is in the details. If we are talking about working a specific quarry and the economic interests at the location are obvious, then conflicts can arise, of course, and people on both sides can lose their tempers. But our aim is to engage in discussions in order to avoid such conflicts in advance. Rademacher: That is exactly how we see things. There will always be controversial discussions and differences of opinion between the communities close to the sites, nature conservationists and extracting companies. But if you look at how many such instances of conflict happen per year, it is clear that things have cooled down considerably. That suggests that it is possible to combine raw materials extraction and nature conservation.