Water Report 2018 - Glencore · Glencore Water Report 2018 4. How we use water ... water scarcity...

Water Report2018

Contents

ContentsPage 1

Our approach to water

stewardshipPage 9

IntroductionPage 2

Business ModelPage 3

How we use water Page 5

PerformancePage 11

Water impacts, risks and

opportunitiesPage 19

Targets, goals and external

engagementPage 25

Next stepsPage 33

Aboutthis report

Page 34

GlossaryPage 35

Appendix 1Page 37

Appendix 2Page 41

Appendix 3Page 45

Diclaimer and Contact Page 49

Sustainability contactsWe welcome feedback on this report or on any other aspect of sustainability at Glencore. Comments can be sent to [email protected]

Sustainability onlineFurther information on our sustainability activities, plus more detailed data on our key sustainability indicators, is available on our website: glencore.com/sustainability

Find us on

@Glencore

facebook.com/Glencore

youtube.com/glencorevideos

Glencore Water Report 20181

IntroductionLife is not possible without water. Water is a crucial resource for the natural environment, human beings and business. At Glencore, we recognise access to water as a fundamental human right.

Glencore, as one of the world’s largest natural resource companies, is highly dependent on water as a key element in the various stages of our production processes.

We manage a number of water related challenges across our diverse operations including water stress and excess water. Some of our operations are located in regions with high to extremely high water baseline stress as defined by the World Resource Institute’s (WRI) Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas. Water scarcity may result in competition between industrial operations and local communities. Excessive water can also significantly affect our activities through the costs associated with dewatering our operations and treating water ahead of its discharge. Other challenges include extended periods of severe drought and flooding that may be further intensified by longer-term impacts arising from climate change.

Ivan Glasenberg, CEO“We recognise access to water as a fundamental human right. It is essential to our operating processes and we support equitable access to water through working with all our regional water users.”

At the same time we have identified a number of water saving and water sharing opportunities that help to conserve water, reduce water dependency and mitigate environmental and local community impacts.

We are publishing this report to inform stakeholders about our approach to responsible water management. Our 2018 Water Report explains our interactions with water as well as the regional context of our activities. It also outlines our approach to water stewardship, our

water-related performance, challenges and opportunities and our associated targets, goals and objectives. The report provides details about our external engagement and the next steps on our journey to implement our strategic water management framework. The appendices show detailed breakdowns of our water performance on a river basin and country level.

Glencore Water Report 2018 2

Business ModelGlencore is present at multiple stages of the commodity supply chain and uniquely diversified by geography, product and activity, maximising the value we create for our business and our stakeholders.

Exploration, acquisition and developmentOur focus on brownfield sites and exploration close to existing assets lowers our risk profile and lets us use existing infrastructure, realise synergies and control costs.

Extraction and productionWe mine and beneficiate minerals across a range of commodities, mining techniques and countries, for processing or refining at our own facilities, or for sale.

Processing and refiningOur expertise and technological advancement in processing and refining mean we can optimise our end products to suit a wider customer base and provide security of supply as well as valuable market knowledge.

Energy

Agriculture

Metals and minerals

3 business segments, spanning the metals,

energy and agricultural markets, producing

90 commodities from 150 sites

Inputs and resources on which our business model depends

Assets and natural resources• Our resources and reserves are

overall long-life and of a high quality, enhancing the scale and value of our marketing business

• We are a disciplined producer, seeking to align supply with demand and value over volume

Our people and partners• We have established long-term

relationships with a broad range of suppliers and customers across diverse industries and geographies

• c.158,000 employees and contractors spread across 90 sites/offices and six continents

Financial discipline• We deploy capital in a disciplined

manner, seeking to create value for all our stakeholders

• Our hedging strategies protect us against price risks and ensure that our marketing profitability is primarily determined by volume-driven activities and value-added services rather than absolute price

Unique market knowledge• As an integrated commodity

producer and marketer, we are uniquely positioned to generate value at every stage of the commodity chain


Geographic arbitrage

Product arbitrage

Time arbitrage

Our commodities in everyday products

Logistics and deliveryOur logistics assets allow us to handle large volumes of commodities, both to fulfil our obligations and to take advantage of demand and supply imbalances. These value added services make us a preferred counterparty for customers without such capabilities.

Blending and optimisationOur ability to blend and optimise allows us to offer a wide range of product specifications, resulting in a superior service and an ability to meet our customer specific requirements.

Our marketing businessWe move commodities

from where they are plentiful to where they are needed.

We have around 150 mining and metallurgical sites, oil production assets and agricultural facilities in over 90 countries with a workforce of about 158,000 employees and contractors. We recognise that our business activities make a significant contribution to the national and local economies in which we operate. We believe that our presence can deliver long-term sustainable benefits to our host countries and regions.


How we use waterOur activities involve the use and management of water in different qualities and quantities

How we use water:

Our most water intensive activity in our mining operations is the removal of water (dewatering) from mines. Our water management activities may involve diverting surface water bodies to ensure safe access to our mines.

Our metal concentrators use water in the processing of ore to facilitate separating metals from waste material to produce higher-grade ore concentrates.

As part of our leaching and hydrometallurgical processing we use water to extract metals from metal-bearing material for further recovery processes.

Our coal operations wash coal to remove waste material in their coal handling and preparation plants to meet customers’ product specifications.

As part of our oil exploration and production activities we use water in oil processing and reservoir management (ie water injection).

Mining operations

Metalconcentrators

Leaching and hydrometallurgical

processing

Coal operations

Oil exploration and production


Throughout our operational processes, we use sprinklers and water carts to mitigate dust emissions from excavation, transport and stockpiling activities.

We collect and treat water to meet the requirements for drinking or process water usage and for discharge or for use by third parties.

A number of our assets support local governments by supplying water to surrounding communities.

Dust mitigation

Water treatment

Local water infrastructure

We ship our products over maritime and inland waterways.Shipping activities

Many of our activities use water for cooling purposes, predominately for non-contact cooling purposes, where no deterioration of the water quality takes place.

Cooling activities


How we use water continued

45

7

1 Baseline water stress measures the level of competition for available water, and estimates the degree to which freshwater availability is an ongoing concern (Source: Aqueduct water risk framework, World Resource Institute, 2013)

Prodeco, Colombia: Comprehensive and leading water strategy

Read more on page 31

Lomas Bayas, Chile: Three-phase roundtable approach with community


Regional contextWe have a global footprint. Our operations are in climatically differing locations that range from deserts to areas with highly distinctive wet and dry seasons or those with high precipitation and/or frequent major storm events. Some of our operations are in very remote locations with nobody or only a few, nomadic people living close by, while others are close to cities or towns. Sometimes, we share a river basin with other mining or industrial companies. Irrespective of the location or size of surrounding population or industries, water availability and the quality of discharged water affect shared water bodies. In some cases, baseline water stress1 can arise from multiple regional uses accessing limited freshwater sources.

Based on the WRI’s Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas, 18% of our operations are located in regions of “high” or “extremely high” water stress or that are classified as “arid & low water use”. We have disclosed the WRI water risk level for each of our sites, by river basin and country, in the appendix.


45

7

Key Metals and minerals sites Energy sites (Number of assets where grouped)

Coal, Australia: Inter-asset water network to mitigate water scarcity


Coal, South Africa: Participation in collaborative forum to identify water management options


Baseline water stress levels Low Low to medium Medium to high Unkown High, extremely high and arid & low water use

High Extremely high Arid & low water use

Share of industrial operations by level of baseline water stress

5%

18%

34%

3%

40%

9%

5%

4%


Our approach to water stewardshipOur strategic water management framework drives our approach to water stewardship and is supported by our overall HSEC governance and business planning

Strategic water management

frameworkIn 2016, we rolled out our

strategic water management framework with five primary objectives:

3To develop and

implement water management plans for each asset’s lifecycle to

avoid, minimise or mitigate impacts

and risks

1To identify and assess

our material water impacts, risks and

opportunities

2To improve our

understanding of our water footprint

4To improve our water

management performance including the identification and

setting of water-related targets5

To engage with interested

stakeholders and to publicly report on

our progress

We have already undertaken a number of actions to meet the strategic water management framework’s objectives:

• Established an internal, cross-departmental water working group with water experts from different regions across the globe

• Aligned our water-related reporting indicators with the Minerals Council of Australia’s (MCA) Water Accounting Framework (WAF), a framework that was developed specifically for water accounting in the mining and metals industry

• Established water balances at all our operations

• Analysed and identified potential high risk sites and evaluated their actual exposure/contribution to water risks and impacts in order to introduce corrective action, where needed

• Developed and progressed the implementation of our water management guideline at all assets

• Participated in the water working group of the International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM) to support the further development of water stewardship initiatives in the mining industry

• Represented the mining industry in the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI) water working group for the revision of its Standard 303: Water and Effluents 2018

• Continued our participation in projects to analyse and mitigate shared risks in Australia, South Africa and Colombia in collaboration with mining peers and other stakeholders

• Continued our participation in the CDP Water Security assessment, achieving a score of ‘B’, the second highest in the metals sector and the highest in the coal category

Strategic water management framework


Our assets are implementing our water management guideline, which aligns with ICMM’s position statement on water1 and its water management framework2. The guideline applies a risk-based approach and covers the minimum requirements for water governance, the identification and evaluation of water-related risks and opportunities, the mitigation of identified risks and impacts, the management of water in terms of quality and quantity and engagement with relevant stakeholders.

GovernanceWe align our approach to water stewardship with our strategic priority to integrate sustainability throughout our business; it reflects our commitment to operate in a responsible and transparent manner (further information on our sustainability framework is available in our Sustainability Report 2018).

Overall responsibility for water stewardship lies with our Board Health, Safety, Environment and Community (HSEC) Committee, on which both our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman sit. The HSEC Committee meets five times a year to receive and review updates on our water performance.

The HSEC Committee’s main responsibilities related to water are:

• Review and approval of the water strategy

• Ensure that appropriate policies are developed in line with our Values and Code of Conduct for the identification and management of current and emerging risks

• Ensure that the policies are effectively communicated throughout the Company and that appropriate processes and procedures are developed at an operational level to comply with and evaluate the effectiveness of these policies through:

– Assessment of operational performance

– Review of internal and external reports and independent audits and reviews of performance in regard to HSEC matters, including water

– Review of action plans developed by management in response to issues raised

1 https://www.icmm.com/water-ps2 https://www.icmm.com/water-stewardship-framework

• Ongoing review of the Group’s progress on its catastrophic hazard management, including water and tailings facilities management

• Consider reports on key performance indicators in relation to material issues, including water, and complaints from host communities

• Consider engagement with communities and NGOs on sustainability matters, including water

Responsibility for day-to-day management of our water footprint and compliance with our policies is maintained at our assets.

Business planningWe integrate water challenges and risks, such as scarcity, stress, environmental sensitivities and operational requirements into our long-term business objectives to support the continued supply of water for operational processes. Where we identify potential and actual water-related challenges and risks, including those relating to climate change, our assets are required to establish appropriate mitigation, adaptation and management measures.


PerformanceOur

performance

In 2018, we withdrew 1,020 million m3 of water compared to 924 million m3 in 2017. The increase was primarily due to the inclusion of the Volcan zinc assets in Peru, acquired in 2017.

Glencore’s overall water balance 2018 (million m3)

Water Input (by source) 1,035Surface water – withdrawn 198Seawater – withdrawn 148Groundwater – withdrawn 395Rainwater – withdrawn 173Potable (drinking) water imported or withdrawn 19Other (not potable) water imported from a third party 86Total water withdrawn 1,020Water entrained in ore that is processed 15

Diversions and water transferred to others 47Surface water diversions 12Aquifer Interception diverted 14Water supplied to others 21

Total water input by quality* 1,035Category 1 – Water input 306Category 2 – Water input 403Category 3 – Water input 326

Water input Water use Water output Water diversion/transferred to others


Water used onsite 1,075Water used in a task or process 530Water recycled at onsite treatment facilities 133Water reused 412

Recycling and reuse efficiency 51%Change in water in storage compared to previous year -16

Water output (by source) 1,051Water discharged to surface water 488Water discharged to seawater/ocean 154Water discharged to groundwater 3Water discharged to offsite treatment or disposal locations 12Water exported to a third party 53Water lost to evaporation and other losses 290Water entrained in waste material and final product 52

Total water output by quality* 1,051Category 1 – Water discharged 498Category 2 – Water discharged 408Category 3 – Water discharged 145

* Water quality categories reflect the effort required to treat water to achieve drinking water quality. Category 1 is minor through to Category 3 for significant efforts (see also page 15)

Water input and output 2016-2018 (million m3)

Total Water Input Total Water Output

20172018

2016

841

938

1,035

794834

1,051


Performance continued

Water input, output and consumption The majority of our water comes from groundwater of which a large proportion is from the dewatering of our mines. The second highest share of our water is from surface and rainwater. Seawater, is the third largest amount of water we withdraw and is predominately used for non-contact cooling purposes, where no deterioration of the water quality takes place. Third parties supply around a tenth of our water needs, of which a minor part (less than 2%) is potable water mainly used for human consumption. The majority of the water supplied by third parties is of lower quality and primarily used for processing purposes. Often, the third party supplier has already used this water before our operational processes reuse it. Furthermore, a small amount of our water is contained in our mined ores.

A detailed breakdown of our water withdrawal, discharge and use by country and river basin is in Appendices 1 to 3.

Share of source of water input (2018)

Third party sources

Surface water* Brackish / seawater

Water entrained in ores

Groundwater

Water input, output and consumption by region (2017-2018)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Australia

North America

South America

Africa

Rest of World

2017 2018 2017 20182017 20182017 20182017 20182017 20182017 20182017 20182017 20182017 20182017 2018Surface water* Groundwater Brackish /

seawater Third partysources

Water entrainedin ores

Total waterconsumed

Water entrainedin waste / finalproduct

Third partydestination

Brackish / seawater

GroundwaterSurface water

ConsumptionDischargeWithdrawal

36%

38%

14%

10%

2%


Some of our assets do not use all the water they withdraw, such as the water from mine dewatering. We divert most of our excess water to surface or groundwater bodies or supply it to external parties, meeting applicable quality requirements.

Our water withdrawal sources depend on local circumstances and result in regional differences in our water withdrawal pattern. For example, in North America and Colombia the majority of our water is from rainwater (included in the surface water shown in the graph to the left) due to comparatively high precipitation rates from both rain and/or snow melt. In contrast, in Africa and South America, we withdraw the majority of our water from groundwater for both water generation and dewatering of our mines. Our coastal-located assets use seawater wherever possible, usually for cooling purposes. The majority of the water used by our Australian operations is non-potable water from internal and external water sharing networks.

Case study: Greater Ravensworth Water

Sharing Network

In the Hunter Valley, Australia, we have implemented a water sharing strategy to minimise the risk of water scarcity and flooding through the development of the Greater Ravensworth Water Sharing Network. The Network links our Liddell, Mount Owen, Integra and Ravensworth coal complexes to allow the transfer of excess water between these operations. We have completed a number of projects over the years, including duplicating and upgrading pipelines and installing differential flow meters. The Network has enabled these operations to mitigate risks from periods of water scarcity and flooding and supported the feasibility of expansion projects. The Network has also reduced operating costs through sharing water between operations and reducing the amount of water withdrawn and discharged. We have commenced work to link our tailings strategy across these operations, which will identify further opportunities for recycling and increasing water efficiency. Our Greater Ravensworth Water Sharing Network is substantially reducing the amount of water withdrawn from the Hunter River.

In compliance with applicable regulations, we discharge excess water into surface water bodies, such as rivers and oceans, aquifers or supply it to third parties, for further use or treatment. Another part of the water leaving our operations is contained in waste material as well as our final products and their by-products.



Water qualityIn accordance with the Water Accounting Framework for the Minerals Industry (WAF) of the Minerals Council of Australia, we differentiate the quality of our water into three categories:

Category 1 Water that is of a high quality and requires minimal and inexpensive treatment (eg disinfection and pond settlement of solids) to raise the quality to appropriate drinking water standards (comparable to potable).

Category 2 Water that is of a medium quality with individual constituents encompassing a wide range of values. It requires a moderate level of treatment such as disinfection, neutralisation, removal of solids and chemicals to meet appropriate drinking water standards (eg agricultural use).

Category 3 Water that is of a low quality with individual constituents encompassing high values of total dissolved solids, elevated levels of dissolved metals or extreme levels of pH (high or low). It requires significant treatment to remove dissolved solids and metals, neutralise and disinfect to meet appropriate drinking water standards (eg industrial and waste water).

Category 2Category 1 Category 3 Category 2Category 1 Category 3

Water input by quality (2018) Water output by quality (2018)

30%

39%

31%

47%

39%

14%


Our water withdrawals are almost equally distributed across categories 1, 2 and 3. Wherever possible we use the water category that is economically and ecologically the most adequate option (ie use the lowest available quality for the required purpose).

The majority of discharged category 3 is water contained in ore or water sent to third parties for further use or treatment. When required, we treat wastewater in line with applicable discharge requirements.

Water withdrawal and discharge by quality and region in 2018 (million m3)

AustraliaNorth AmericaSouth America

Africa

Rest of World

Category 1 Category 3Category 2Category 1Category 3Category 2

Withdrawal Discharge

74

23

46 48

114

86

50

128

52

87

23

116

8581

20

107114

131

61

8592

84

109

29

94

32

1720

73

3



Water reuse and recycling efficiencyIn 2018, our assets showed an overall reuse and recycling efficiency rate of 51%*. The reporting of water use, recycling and reuse data is complex and we are working with our operations on a more consistent and complete reporting approach.

* The water efficiency is the total volume of both untreated and treated water used in tasks / processes which has already been worked (used) by the site (ie previously used and recovered) as a percentage (%) of the total volume of all water used in tasks /processes

Efficiency rates

Reuse efficiencyOverall efficiency rate

Recyling efficiency

Africa TotalRest of WorldSouth AmericaNorth AmericaAustralia

2%

43%40%

32%32%

1%

25%

7%

17%

63%

58%

5%

61%

41%

19%

51%

38%

12%

The efficiency rates in the different regions correlate mostly with the availability of water which means the rates are usually higher in water scarce regions than in regions with an excess of water.


Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)In line with our water management guideline, our workforce (employees and contractors) has access to clean drinking water, gender-appropriate sanitation facilities and hygiene in the workplace. During 2019, we will conduct a survey to identify potential areas of improvement for the provision of WASH facilities.

Some of our operations also provide access to WASH services, such as treated water, drilled boreholes as well as upgrading and building treatment plants and its associated infrastructure for the local communities living near their operations.

Case study: Rehabiliation of Krim-Krim’s

water tower, Chad

Krim-Krim town in southern Chad is one of the largest urban areas in the region and close to our PetroChad Mangara (PCM) oil and gas operations. In recent years, Krim-Krim’s population has rapidly increased due to a large influx of economic migrants looking for employment and former residents returning from the Central African Republic. This has resulted in pressures on local infrastructure and services.

Krim-Krim also hosts the province’s largest weekly market, which attracts traders from neighbouring cantons as well as around 1,000 to 2,000 visitors, causing further stress on its facilities.

Outside of the Chad capital, N’Djamena, access to grid-operated water, electricity and sanitation is limited. Most people take water from rivers, water vendors or water towers that access underground natural wells. Many rely on water from unsanitary sources.

Krim-Krim’s canton chief requested support to refurbish a water tower that serves about 39,000 people. The water tower had not worked for over two years, causing severe impacts due to a shortage of freshwater in the region. In addition, local women and children endure long journeys on foot to alternative water sources.

PCM funded repairs and provided training on maintenance and administration and financial management skills. The local community took responsibility for the water tower.

At the handover ceremony, Mr Toussaint Naim, the Krim-Krim canton chief, noted, “Water is life and by offering water to my people, PCM has offered life to my people.”

During the ceremony, women’s associations planted young mango, guava, moringa and banana trees around the water supply point to reflect the water tower’s contribution to human, plant and animal life.

Since our presence in Chad began in 2011, Glencore, through PCM, has refurbished three water towers, built three new water towers, restored two water wells and built 25 water wells, seven community mills and eight granaries.


Water impacts, risks and opportunities

Our challenges

and opportunities

Our assets are exposed to various water-related challenges but at the same time there are opportunities that have the potential to benefit our operations and local communities. Our water risk assessment is designed to identify and mitigate any potential risks and to evaluate the feasibility of any existing opportunity.


Water-related impactsOur Glencore sustainable development database (GSDD) allows us to track our water-related impacts such as incidents, complaints and fines. Based on this, we had three ‘moderate’ water-related environmental incidents in 2018 (2017: one moderate incident). According to the Glencore Corporate Risk Management Framework we classify the severity of all sustainability-related incidents against a five-point scale from negligible, to minor, moderate, major and catastrophic.

The incidents related to:

• A failure, due to heavy rainfall, to contain a spill caused by leaking sodium hydro-sulphide drums at our KCC copper operation in the DRC, with some diluted material washed down a drain by heavy rain. The impact was subsequently fully remediated and included compensation to farmers affected by crop damage. In line with its responsible approach towards the environment and its commitment to good relations with its surrounding communities, KCC is supporting the community to expand their livelihood opportunities through training, financial support and mentoring.

• A leaking pipeline at the Prodeco Port in Colombia caused approximately 55,000 gallons of diesel to penetrate into the soil. The diesel spill has a radius of less than 50 metres from the leak and didn’t impact any surface water body. Prodeco has established a full-time diesel extraction process and ongoing monitoring and remediation activities that are expected to continue for another two to three years.

• Acidic water from Prodeco’s La Jagua south pit was accidentally discharged into a stream adjacent to its operation. The discharge was stopped, the stream fully cleaned and the acidic water is now stored onsite while a water treatment solution is designed and implemented.

During the year, we received 23 water-related community complaints, a similar level to those in 2017 (19). We investigated all complaints and, where appropriate, worked with local authorities to address any operational impacts on water sources.

We also received 24 water-related fines totalling around $1.5 million (2017: nine fines totalling $0.2 million). The majority of the fines, around $1.26 million, were for incidents at Volcan, our zinc operations in Peru, that occurred between 2006 and 2009 prior to our ownership. Corrective action was undertaken to prevent future occurrences.

Water-related risks – high risk site assessmentWe have identified the assets that we consider to have potentially high water-related risks by applying WRI’s Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas’ baseline water stress levels, with consideration for the assets’ quantity of freshwater withdrawal, using the following approach:

Baseline water stress

Rating Water stress level*

1 Low

2 Low to medium

3 Medium to high

4 High

5 Extremely high

Water withdrawal categories

Rating Annual water withdrawal (ML)

1 0 < 250

2 >250 < 500

3 >500 < 1,000

4 >1,000 < 5,000

5 > 5,000

Combined rating & Risk category

Combined rating

Risk category

1-5 1 - very low risk

6-10 2 - low risk

11-15 3 - medium risk

16-20 4 - high risk

21-25 5 - very high risk

x =

* According to WRI’s Aqueduct Water Risk Atlas


Water impacts, risks and opportunities continued

Each asset is also assessed on water quality risks. If identified, these risks are added to the combined rating to produce a final rating.

We have assessed the ultimate risk exposure of assets allocated to risk categories 4 and 5 by looking at actual operational water-related risks and their mitigation and management measures, as well as overall water availability and quality, stakeholder engagement and regulatory requirements. We are currently also assessing sites allocated to risk category 3 with a focus on those with identified water-related reputational issues.

Our initial assessment identified nine operations in risk categories 4 and 5, respectively six sites (2.6% of assets) and three sites (1.3%). Our analysis of these sites identified areas for improvement for two of the nine assets although the identified risks are generally considered to be well under control: a ferroalloys site in South Africa (a groundwater-related risk) and a zinc site in Kazakhstan (a water scarcity-related risk). At both of these assets, we are making operational changes to address the identified areas of concern. At the other seven sites, further investigation showed that the originally identified potential risks were either not actual or had been successfully mitigated by the assets’ existing water management plan.

Annual risks surveyIn addition to the high-risk site assessment, we identify, assess and monitor our water-related risks through an annual internal survey.

The survey defines a substantive financial or strategic business impact as an operational change resulting from a water risk that causes a material financial impact due to physical impacts including environmental impacts and social unrest. The financial impact may arise from:

• Increased operating costs

• Negative reputational impact that leads to a loss of operating licence

• Regulatory restrictions placed on production processes, and/or

• Materially reduced or disrupted production

For classifying material business risks, we use a risk matrix as part of Glencore’s risk management framework with defined thresholds to assess the combinations of potential consequence and likelihood.

The risk matrix is used for environmental, physical, regulatory, technological, reputational and community risks linked to water and we apply it to both our direct operations and our value chain.

We assess all risks irrespective of their risk classification, and put in place appropriate preventive and mitigating controls.

Using this approach the following risks have been identified as having the potential to cause a material impact on our business:


Table: Identified material water-related risks, number of sites exposed to those risks and measures taken to address them

Type of risk Description of risk Number of sites who have identified risks as material

Measures taken

Severe weather events

Some of our sites, as well as parts of our supply chain, may be exposed to drought, flooding or other severe weather events.

4 This requires some of our sites to install additional water management infrastructure. For example, we have invested in water transfer infrastructure (eg levees, dams, pipes and pumps, etc.) to help high-risk assets improve their resilience to droughts and flooding. Recognising that extreme weather can have significant impacts on our host communities, we make these investments in consultation with local stakeholders to take into account their needs.

Acid mine drainage (AMD) / acid rock drainage (ARD) / leaching to groundwater

Mining involves the disposal of residues from mining and ore processing into tailings storage facilities (TSF) and waste rock piles. Depending on the ore’s chemical properties the material, if exposed to oxygen and water, could generate acidic water. AMD/ARD can also be generated from mine dewatering, depending on the geochemistry of the deposit.

6 AMD risks mainly arise from legacy issues in operations that have operated for many years. It is important that we manage rock that has the potential to cause acid mine drainage adequately. When legacy AMD issues or new AMD issues arise we capture the affected water and store it prior to treating it to a useable standard for either reuse in our operations or discharge. Where required, we either upgrade existing or construct new water treatment plants.

Changing regulations

Some jurisdictions may implement increasingly stringent water regulations. These can impact the requirements for the quality of water we discharge or the total volume of water we are able to withdraw. This could require sites to upgrade or construct water treatment systems to meet new quality parameters for discharge or to increase the amount of water that can be reused.

4 We engage with governments and regulators (including water utilities, catchment management authorities, etc.) on a regular basis and work with them to meet regulatory requirements. Where new regulatory requirements are set, we either upgrade existing or construct new water treatment plants, as needed.

Potential adverse impact on water availability (volume or quality impact)

Our operations’ and other local users’ water withdrawal may affect water availability for local communities and other parties. This could require sites to implement water replenishment systems.

3 Across our operations we aim to minimise the amount of water we withdraw while maximising the water we reuse and recycle. We avoid discharging water that can be used by others (eg providing water to communities for agricultural or drinking purposes). Where required, we either upgrade existing or construct new water treatment plants for this purpose.

Sites exposed to one or more of these material risks are implementing, preventive or mitigating controls to ensure the current risk level is controlled to as low as reasonably practicable.

Further risks generally associated with our tailings storage facilities are available in Glencore’s Sustainability Report 2018 and on our website.


Water-related opportunitiesOur water reporting is harmonised with the Water Accounting Framework (WAF) of the Minerals Council of Australia. This approach has improved our data reporting through more robust indicator definitions. It has also resulted in the identification of opportunities to improve water efficiencies and reduce operating costs.

We have identified and implemented various water sharing and saving opportunities that help to conserve water, reduce water dependency and mitigate environmental and local community impacts. Some of these initiatives are:

• A water-sharing network in the Hunter valley, Australia (see the case study “Greater Ravensworth Water Sharing Network” on page 14 for additional information)

• In Chile, our Lomas Bayas plant is located in the Atacama Desert, the driest desert in the world. Through replacing its sprinklers with drip irrigation, the site has minimised its overall evaporation rate and improved the distribution of the used leach solution, enabling it to operate in these harsh conditions. Other efforts to reduce evaporation include installing floating covers at its ponds and the replacement of trenches with pipes

• In Australia, our Ulan coal operation is harnessing technical expertise to extract and treat mine water from underground operations, which can be used for agriculture, as well as significantly contributing to the natural flow of the nearby Goulburn River

• Also in Australia, our Oaky Creek coal operation has constructed a reverse-osmosis water treatment plant to manage processed water. This has reduced the amount of freshwater it withdraws by 1.6 billion litres per year. This has allowed to transfer some of its original allocation to the local township of Capella, demonstrating how operational improvements can deliver benefits to our neighbouring communities

• Our South African coal business integrates GoldSim* water and salt balances for each asset. These water balances have led to an asset-specific water conservation and demand management strategy, which is supporting the achievement of its water-use efficiency targets

• In Australia, our coal business upgraded its operational water balance models with predictive tools to improve its water management. These predictive tools use the water balance model, current water inventories and local rainfall forecasts to predict site water inventories. The models are updated each month to determine the likely range of operating conditions for the coming year, such as floods, normal conditions, conservation and drought. Operating conditions are adjusted to align with the predicted water management requirements

• Our Australian coal assets have significantly reduced their water footprint through substantial rehabilitation and closure work. All coal assets have an annual rehabilitation target that assists in reducing water ingress in the mines once rehabilitation is done

• Our Prodeco coal assets in Colombia continue to meet their water targets through the construction of robust rainwater management and treatment infrastructure in their pits and waste dumps, optimisation of industrial and domestic water treatment systems and maintaining high levels of water recycling within its operations

• In South Africa, our ferroalloys business is implementing predictive water balance tools for each asset, which supports reducing the amount of water a site withdraws and to identify opportunities for further reductions. The water balance tools will also allow management decisions that further optimise water use

• Our Sinchi Wayra/Illapa zinc operations are located in the high Andes of Bolivia and face ongoing impacts from extreme weather events such as droughts and flooding. They regularly review measures to reduce freshwater consumption in the processing plants. Currently, the zinc and lead concentrator plants recirculate around 85% of water used. Following a $700,000 upgrade in 2017 to its water treatment processes, Sinchi Wayra/Illapa sends the majority of its treated water for agricultural purposes as well as using water treated for human consumption at the mine site and supplying to neighbouring communities. The supplied water benefits around 2,600 local farmers and rural dwellers

* GoldSim is a tool to visualise and dynamically simulate complex systems, such as water balances.

Water impacts, risks and opportunities continued


24Glencore Water Report 2018

Targets, goals and externalengagement

Our response

We have established group-wide goals and asset-specific targets to improve our overall water performance. We use multiple engagement strategies to engage with our stakeholders and several of our assets participate in collective action projects.


Targets and goalsOur water management framework specifies our overall water-related objectives (see pages 9 and 10).

We also define targets for specific asset, basins, countries and/or departments as a means to prioritise areas for improvement and corrective action that deliver the largest returns and create shared benefits for multiple stakeholders. We consider this approach to be the most effective way of target setting compared to setting a group-wide target.

Many of our assets target water efficiency rates per tonne of product produced or water reuse/recycling rates on an annual basis and we do not include these in the table below. These assets do this as they have previously set and achieved targets that enable them to target optimal performance rates year on year.

Description of target Current status

Our Australian coal operations are targeting a 28% reduction in freshwater intensity by the end of 2019, against a baseline year of 2015. We are one of the largest coal producers in Australia, with operations in the Hunter, Burdekin and Fitzroy basins and, as such, we have identified water as one of our most material environmental impacts for this region. This reduction target forms a key part of our corporate strategic water management framework.

At the end of 2018, we had achieved a 18% reduction against the baseline year (64% achievement of the target).

We still have more work to do to meet the target, including the development of Collinsville’s water treatment plant that should replace 1.2GL/ year of freshwater usage.

Our Prodeco coal operations in Colombia are targeting recirculation rates of 97% in the mines and 25% in the port by the end of 2019, against a 2013 baseline.

The mines and the port have both already met the targets and are now aiming to maintain the recirculation rates year on year.

In Spain, our Asturiana zinc operation is targeting a 1% reduction in water consumption per production unit during 2015-2020, against a 2015 baseline.

The target was achieved during 2016 and is being sustained year on year.

In Germany, Nordenham zinc operation’s target was a 5% reduction of freshwater consumption in the leaching plant by the end of 2018, against a 2017 baseline.

The asset exceeded the target, achieving a 51% reduction. The significant reduction was achieved by:

• Increased reuse of water collected in settling dams • The ability to reuse water that was used to clean belt filters • The reviewing and upgrading of existing systems that

enable quick changes to be made for distributing water in the leaching plant, depending on operating conditions

The asset is now targeting maintaining this reduced water volume year on year.

In the UK, Britannia Refined Metals is targeting a 5% reduction in freshwater consumption intensity (per tonne of metal produced) by the end of 2020, against a 2015 baseline.

At the end of 2018 the asset had achieved 50% of the target. This has been achieved by installing water meters fitted with telemetry which feed-back data to a central system allowing both real time and tracking of historic data for individual areas and processes of the asset. The data is also reviewed on a monthly basis to identify trends and enable improvements to be made.


Targets, goals and external engagement continued


In Canada, Brunswick Smelter’s target was a reduction of water consumption of 10% less water withdrawals by the end of 2018, against a 2013 baseline.

We achieved this target and now plan to maintain the amount of water withdrawn year on year.

In Kazakhstan, our Malevevsky mine is targeting a 26% reduction of pollutant discharge per year by 2020, against a 2015 baseline.

The asset has already achieved a 50% reduction due to the installation of an advanced water treatment plant. Further reductions should be achieved by continuing to reuse the treated water.

In Chile, our Altonorte smelter uses over 75% of reused water of low quality (water quality category 3) supplied from the wastewater treatment plant in Antofagasta. Altonorte is also a zero discharge plant, as it does not release effluents into the environment. Their strategy focuses on improving the water balance and efficiency of use. Capital projects concentrate on water recycling or reduction of usage. Two projects currently under development are a Thickened Tailings Disposal (TTD) and slag pot cooling. Through the TTD project, the site is targeting at 2.3% reduction in freshwater / tonne smelted by the end of 2019, against a 2016 baseline. The implementation of the cooling in slag-pots project is targeting a 27.1% reduction by the end of 2022, against a 2016 baseline.

In 2018, Altonorte improved its water balance by installing 11 new flowmeters to reduce estimated flows. The TTD project is on track and will start up in 2019.

The slag-cooling project is expected to be implemented in phases starting in 2019 with full operation expected in December 2022.

In Peru, Yauliyacu is targeting a 15% reduction annually of freshwater used in mine accommodation and the concentrator plant by the end of 2021, against a 2018 baseline.

This is a new target and Yauliyacu is currently on track to achieve it.

In Peru, our Contonga operation has set two targets:

• Reduce consumption of potable water by 2% in the mine accommodation by the end of 2020 against a baseline of 2018

• Increase the reuse of water used in cutting rock cores to 60% by the end of 2020, against a baseline of 2018

These are new targets and we will report progress against these next year.



In Bolivia, our Sinchi Wayra operations are targeting a 20% increase in the amount of drinking water they supply to local communities by the end of 2023, against a 2018 baseline.

Sinchi Wayra is upgrading their water treatment plant (changing parts, filters, etc.) to increase the output of the plant by 20%.

In Canada, Horne smelter is targeting a 25% reduction in water withdrawals by the end of 2026, against a 2016 baseline.

The asset is preparing a water consumption balance and will prepare a plan for a decrease in water consumption by the end of 2019. Unassociated with this target the site has implemented various measures to improve the quality of its water discharges and is investigating further initiatives to mitigate any potential issues.

In the Philippines, Pasar smelter has set two targets:

• An 80% increase in water recycling and reuse by the end of 2020, against a 2016 baseline

• A 90% reduction in effluent discharge by the end of 2020, against a 2016 baseline

The targets will also reduce the amount of water withdrawn.

The asset has two phases to achieve the targets. Phase 1 required the construction of Storm Water and Process Drain Control Facilities and was completed in 2017.

Phase 2 will involve a Zero Wastewater Discharge Project, which aims to implement zero discharge in one part of the operation enabling the water to be reused for slag cooling. This requires collaboration between the different departments in the operation to reduce wastewater discharge by recycling their process water. The refinery and slag flotation plant have already started recycling water.

In Australia, our Ernest Henry Mine holds contracts for water supply from Lake Julius. The site has already reduced the amount of water withdrawn by 38% (1,250ML) between 2015 to 2018. The site is targeting a further reduction of 1,000ML/year (50%) and to maintain this level until the end of the contract.

The site is now planning how to meet the 2025 target.


Targets, goals and external engagement continued

External engagementWe recognise that access to water is a fundamental human right. We are committed to upholding respect for human rights in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nation’s (UN) Guiding Principles, the UN Global Compact and International Labour Organization’s core conventions is articulated in our Code of Conduct and Group Human Rights Policy.

We are committed to transparent and constructive dialogue with all relevant stakeholders. Our stakeholders include our workforce, shareholders, suppliers and partners, governments and regulators (including water utilities, catchment management authorities, etc.), non-governmental organisations, labour unions, civil society, media and other water users at a catchment level. We use multiple engagement strategies to engage with our stakeholders.

We have developed and provide regional training on our community leadership programme, targeting general managers and community practitioners. The training includes water-related topics, provides attendees with tools for stakeholder engagement and community development.

In line with our community and stakeholder engagement policy we are continuing the enhancement of our collaboration with our local communities.

We participate in collective action projects in Australia, South Africa and Colombia in collaboration with mining peers and other interested stakeholders to analyse and mitigate shared risks.

We continue to participate in the annual CDP Water assessment; our score of B* (2017: A-) - the second highest in the metals sector and the highest in coal category - reflects our approach to managing water-related risk responsibly. Our submission is publicly available.

Case study: Communication and

collaboration at Lomas Bayas,

Chile

We recognise that water management is a complex issue that requires collaborative dialogue between each assets’ multiple stakeholders.

In Chile, our Lomas Bayas copper operation is located in the Atacama Desert - the driest in the world. Here, the asset has engaged extensively with the local community on water use for many years, and senior management regularly meets with local stakeholders including representatives of the communities and farmers living and operating in the river catchment area.

Lomas Bayas has implemented a three-phase roundtable approach that facilitates communication and collaboration. The first phase involves identifying the risks and opportunities relating to current activities. In the second phase, participants help to co-design solutions for those risks and opportunities. During the final phase, roundtable stakeholders consider whether risks are successfully mitigated and evaluate the effectiveness of the initiatives implemented.

* CDP has revised their scoring methodology in 2018 which resulted in an average decline of the respondents scores compared to previous years.


Case study: Community engagement

on a shared resource in the Hunter Valley,

Australia

In 2010, in coordination with the NSW Minerals Council, the region’s miners established the Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue in Australia to address community concerns on the pressure created by mining on local infrastructure and services, land rehabilitation, water and air quality. The Dialogue, which Glencore chairs, brings together representatives from six coal producers from the region and community and business leaders, environmental groups, residents, regulators and other industries. It is a collaborative effort, determining the biggest priorities for the local community, understanding their concerns and working together to develop and implement solutions to their top priorities. The mining industry, the community and the local government work together to identify projects to assist with understanding and managing of the local impacts of mining. Some of these projects have included air quality management, water management, rehabilitation and mine closure. The community and local government work with the mining companies to shape the strategic direction of the initiative. Working together is improving communication between industry and the community and fostering a better understanding for all involved on how the mining industry works.


Internal action and external engagement continued

Case study: Ongoing water

management leadership at Prodeco, Colombia

Prodeco has designed and implemented a comprehensive water management strategy that uses a catchment-based approach. It uses the strategy in different projects and initiatives:

• As part of its regional environmental management strategy, and in partnership with other mining companies and the environmental authorities, Prodeco has developed a conceptual regional hydrogeological model that evaluates the impacts of mining on groundwater and supports the design of a regional groundwater-monitoring network

• Prodeco is developing forest offset projects with rural communities in the Perijá mountains, Cesar, Colombia to conserve and restore forests, and to support sustainable rural production processes in agro-forestry systems (eg coffee, cocoa) as well as to preserve water supply from Perijá mountains to the Cesar river. These projects cover around 14,000 hectares and have already achieved positive results, including improving the sustainable development of the region, contributing to the consolidation of territorial peace and the socio-economic transition to mine closure

• Prodeco is founder and supporter of the Santa Marta and Ciénaga Water Fund in Colombia, which aims to finance water basin conservation and restoration in Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. The Tribal NGOs Consortium (TNC) leads this initiative with support from the Inter-American Development Bank, government and NGOs (eg Carlos Vives’ Tras La Perla). Prodeco is currently the only private company directly supporting this initiative


Case study: Participation in

collaborative forum, Coal South Africa

Glencore Coal South Africa participates in a collaborative forum, the Mine Water Coordinating Body (MWCB), which is a public-private platform for the mining industry and government. The purpose of the MWCB is to jointly identify and implement management options for the water and waste management and closure of coal mines in the Mpumalanga coalfields. The focus of the platform includes the design of projects to address long-term impacts of mine affected water, including acid rock drainage, acid mine drainage and saline drainage.

AngloCoal, Eskom, Exxaro, Glencore, Sasol and South32 initiated the MWCB together with the Department of Water and Sanitation, Department of Mineral Resources and the Mpumalanga Province Department of Economic Affairs and Tourism. Through working together, these entities are developing a collaborative approach towards sustainable mine closure.

The MWCB has outlined a roadmap of collaborative actions which include strategic projects and interventions.

The Green Engine Project is demonstrating the viability of an integrated land stewardship model. The integration of mine-owned land, renewable energy and treated mine water will contribute towards creating business opportunities that will benefit local communities. This project will help to change the general perception of mine closure.

The Mine Water for Irrigation project is a five-year research study investigating the use of saline water for farming purposes. It focuses on meeting agricultural quality standards for irrigating saline resistant crops such as wheat and soya coupled with the assessment of the longer-term impact of irrigation on the local groundwater quality. The study covers a geographic spread of over 32 hectares of rehabilitated coal pits and nearby unmined plots.

The Regional Post-Closure Economic Study for the Coalfields is investigating potential economic opportunities and research-implementing partners.

It considers national, provincial and local government in mine closure planning. It will identify rehabilitation and water management projects.

A key component is the conceptualisation, coordination, development and implementation of water demonstration projects. The Study will start with the rehabilitation process and conversion of land assets to sustainable agri-industrial economic zones. These zones will create long-term benefits for the local community as well as supporting sustainable economic development in the Mpumalanga Province while helping to mitigate the impact of mine closure. The Study will create a standard for sustainable mine closure that addresses social and environmental obligations.


Next stepsThe next steps on our journey to implement ourstrategic water management framework include thefollowing:

Complete group-wide implementation of water management guideline

4 - To improve our water management performance including the identification and setting of water-related targets

Conduct a survey to identify potential areas of improvement for the provision of WASH facilities.

1 - To identify and assess our material water impacts, risks and opportunities

Continue knowledge sharing and training on water issues

4 - To improve our water management performance including the identification and setting of water-related targets

Continue pilot study on implementing ICMM’s catchment-based approach

2 - To improve our understanding of our water footprint

Evaluate medium-risk assets with a focus on those with identified reputational issues


Develop a risk-based approach in assessing our suppliers with the highest water risk profiles


Next step

Link to strategic water management framework objective (refer to page 9-10):


About this reportFurther information about our general approach and position on various sustainability issues is available at glencore.com/sustainability

This report includes information and data from our industrial activities where we have operational control, excluding the following parts of the business as their water-related contribution is immaterial:

• Minor storage units (ie silos, warehouses, terminals, etc.) and non-coal port facilities

• Offices not associated with operations

• Non-producing projects reporting no or minor quantities of water

• Joint Ventures where we have no operational control (eg Glencore Agriculture, Cerrejón, Collahuasi, Antamina)

The report contains data for the full year 2018.

Acquisitions are only included if they were integrated before 1 July 2018. Data from divestments is included until the month before disposal.

Due to the completion of the sale of 50% of the agricultural products business at the end of 2016 the data from this business is excluded from the numbers presented in this report.

Closed sites (or sites in the care and maintenance phase of their lifecycles) report on a limited indicator set, reflecting their reduced activities and workforce.

Some of the totals shown may reflect the rounding up or down of subtotals.

This report provides information regarding our contribution to the following United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals:


Glossary

Available blue waterTotal blue water approximates natural river discharge, and accounts for all within-basin and accumulated upstream natural runoff. Available blue water is an estimate of surface water availability and is computed from total blue water by removing all upstream consumptive uses (Source: Aqueduct water risk framework, World Resource Institute (WRI), 2013).

Baseline water stressBaseline water stress is the annual water withdrawals divided by the mean of available blue water. Baseline water stress measures the level of competition for available water, and estimates the degree to which freshwater availability is an ongoing concern (Source: Aqueduct Water Risk Framework, WRI, 2013).

ConsumptionConsumption = withdrawal - discharge - change in storage (Source: A practical guide to consistent water reporting, International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM), 2017) .

FreshwaterFreshwater = Surface water (ie rivers, lakes etc. but excluding seawater / brackish water) + groundwater + rainwater + potable water.

Recycling efficiencyThe total volume of treated water used in tasks / processes which has already been worked (used) by the site (ie previously recovered) as a percentage (%) of the total volume of all water used in tasks /processes (Source: A practical guide to consistent water reporting, ICMM, 2017).

River basinThe term river basin is sometimes used interchangeably with catchment, drainage basin or watershed. A river catchment is the area of land from which all surface run-off and subsurface waters flow through a sequence of streams, rivers, groundwater aquifers and lakes into the sea or another outlet at a single river mouth, estuary or delta; and the area of water downstream affected by the site’s discharge. (Source: A practical guide to catchment-based water management for the mining and metals industry, ICMM, 2015).

Reuse and recycling efficiencyThe total volume of both untreated and treated water used in tasks / processes which has already been worked (used) by the site (ie previously used and recovered) as a percentage (%) of the total volume of all water used in tasks /processes (Source: A practical guide to consistent water reporting, ICMM, 2017).

Reuse Efficiency The total volume of untreated water used in tasks / processes which has already been worked (used) by the site (ie previously used) as a percentage (%) of the total volume of all water used in tasks /processes (Source: A practical guide to consistent water reporting, ICMM, 2017.

WASHWASH is the collective term for Water Access, Sanitation and Hygiene (Source: UNICEF, https://www.unicef.org/wash/3942_3952.html)

Water dischargeWater discharged to surface water, seawater, groundwater or exported to third parties (eg for treatment or reuse). Water discharge excludes water entrained in waste material or final product/by-product or that is lost for any other reasons (eg evaporation).

Water inputTotal water withdrawn and water entrained in processed materials (eg ores).

Water outputTotal water discharge, water entrained in waste/product/by-product and water losses (eg evaporation).

Water quality category 1Water is of a high quality and may require minimal and inexpensive treatment (eg disinfection and pond settlement of solids) to raise the quality to appropriate drinking water standards (Source: Water Accounting Framework, Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), 2014).

Water quality category 2Water is of a medium quality with individual constituents encompassing a wide range of values. It would require moderate level of treatment such as disinfection, neutralisation, removal of solids and chemicals to meet appropriate drinking water standards (Source: Water Accounting Framework, MCA, 2014).

Water quality category 3Water is of a low quality with individual constituents encompassing high values of total dissolved solids, elevated levels of dissolved metals or extreme levels of pH. It would require significant treatment to remove dissolved solids and metals, neutralise and disinfect to meet appropriate drinking water standards (Source: Water Accounting Framework, MCA, 2014).

Water withdrawalWater withdrawn from surface water, seawater, groundwater, rainwater, third parties (eg potable and non-potable water). Water withdrawal excludes water entrained in ore and water losses (eg evaporation).



Appendix 1Overview of 2018 water input of our sites by country, river basin and baseline water stress level

Overview of 2018 water input of our sites by country, river basin and baseline water stress level (ML)*)

Country River basinBaseline water stress level # of sites Surface water Seawater Groundwater Rainwater

Potable water from third party

Other water from third party

Water entrained in input

Total water input

Category 1 - input

Category 2 - input

Category 3 - input

Australia BURDEKIN 1. Low (<10%) 3 85 - 955 4,447 302 1,981 1,094 8,864 3,966 1,696 3,202FITZROY 1. Low (<10%) 5 314 - 5,199 4,411 - 1,603 4,118 15,646 2,690 5,515 7,441

HUNTER 3. Medium to high (20-40%)

13 7,503 - 10,229 5,436 70 10,344 5,165 38,747 7,866 11,837 19,045

LEICHHARDT RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 5 - - 5,066 951 5,455 29,023 478 40,973 5,826 682 34,466

MACARTHUR RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 18 - 3,788 3,171 - - 79 7,056 849 1,003 5,205

MURRAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 113 8 - 811 - 932 - 932 -

FLINDERS RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 862 - 4,918 - - - 92 5,872 862 4,918 92

GHAASBasin3728 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - 957 3 - - 960 80 880 -

GHAASBasin1850 3. Medium to high (20-40%)

1 - - 19 26 163 - - 208 189 - 19

GHAASBasin174 Arid & low water use 1 - - 11,694 - - - - 11,694 - - 11,694

Canada ST.LAWRENCE 1. Low (<10%) 6 72,587 - 7,851 68,258 1,058 3,269 178 153,201 14,969 88,062 50,169unknown 1 - - - - 39 - - 39 39 - -

MOOSE RIVER (TRIB. HUDSON BAY)

1. Low (<10%) 1 4,971 - 182 11,298 - - 26 16,476 - 16,450 26

NOTTAWAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,083 - 2,002 5,101 - - 10 10,196 3,116 - 7,080

GHAASBasin3336 1. Low (<10%) 1 713 - 3,024 1,781 - - 28 5,547 713 - 4,834

GHAASBasin523 unknown 1 1,866 17,358 - 200 - - - 19,423 - 19,423 -

South Africa LIMPOPO 3. Medium to high (20-40%)

15 2,318 - 17,240 1,809 893 983 1,607 24,851 963 5,006 18,881

4. High (40-80%) 9 1,845 - 2,167 131 2,573 - - 6,716 4,544 2,161 11

INKOMATI 2. Low to medium (10-20%)

1 - - 1,030 102 - - 79 1,211 45 - 1,165

Colombia MAGDALENA 1. Low (<10%) 2 - - 10,208 15,782 - - - 25,990 - 25,990 -TORIBIO 1. Low (<10%) 1 377 - - 59 - - - 436 - 436 -

Chad LAKE CHAD 1. Low (<10%) 1 56 - 156 - 1 - - 213 1 212 -

Chile unknown Arid & low water use 2 4,845 - 1,264 - 4 2,652 - 8,766 5,969 - 2,798

Argentina PARANA 5. Extremely high (>80%)

1 - - 1,873 - - - 8 1,882 - - 1,882

COLORADO (ARGENTINIA)

5. Extremely high (>80%)

1 - - - - - - - - - - -


1 - - 14,518 1,894 - - 274 16,687 16,687 - -

* Table only includes sites that were in operation in 2018 and reported any water data.







Total water input

Category 1 - input

Category 2 - input

Category 3 - input

Australia BURDEKIN 1. Low (<10%) 3 85 - 955 4,447 302 1,981 1,094 8,864 3,966 1,696 3,202FITZROY 1. Low (<10%) 5 314 - 5,199 4,411 - 1,603 4,118 15,646 2,690 5,515 7,441


13 7,503 - 10,229 5,436 70 10,344 5,165 38,747 7,866 11,837 19,045

LEICHHARDT RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 5 - - 5,066 951 5,455 29,023 478 40,973 5,826 682 34,466

MACARTHUR RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 18 - 3,788 3,171 - - 79 7,056 849 1,003 5,205

MURRAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 113 8 - 811 - 932 - 932 -

FLINDERS RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 862 - 4,918 - - - 92 5,872 862 4,918 92

GHAASBasin3728 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - 957 3 - - 960 80 880 -


1 - - 19 26 163 - - 208 189 - 19

GHAASBasin174 Arid & low water use 1 - - 11,694 - - - - 11,694 - - 11,694

Canada ST.LAWRENCE 1. Low (<10%) 6 72,587 - 7,851 68,258 1,058 3,269 178 153,201 14,969 88,062 50,169unknown 1 - - - - 39 - - 39 39 - -


1. Low (<10%) 1 4,971 - 182 11,298 - - 26 16,476 - 16,450 26

NOTTAWAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,083 - 2,002 5,101 - - 10 10,196 3,116 - 7,080

GHAASBasin3336 1. Low (<10%) 1 713 - 3,024 1,781 - - 28 5,547 713 - 4,834

GHAASBasin523 unknown 1 1,866 17,358 - 200 - - - 19,423 - 19,423 -


15 2,318 - 17,240 1,809 893 983 1,607 24,851 963 5,006 18,881

4. High (40-80%) 9 1,845 - 2,167 131 2,573 - - 6,716 4,544 2,161 11


1 - - 1,030 102 - - 79 1,211 45 - 1,165

Colombia MAGDALENA 1. Low (<10%) 2 - - 10,208 15,782 - - - 25,990 - 25,990 -TORIBIO 1. Low (<10%) 1 377 - - 59 - - - 436 - 436 -

Chad LAKE CHAD 1. Low (<10%) 1 56 - 156 - 1 - - 213 1 212 -

Chile unknown Arid & low water use 2 4,845 - 1,264 - 4 2,652 - 8,766 5,969 - 2,798


1 - - 1,873 - - - 8 1,882 - - 1,882



1 - - - - - - - - - - -


1 - - 14,518 1,894 - - 274 16,687 16,687 - -








Total water input

Category 1 - input

Category 2 - input

Category 3 - input

Peru AMAZONAS 1. Low (<10%) 5 7,151 - 39,792 4,240 - 8,377 96 59,656 10,873 7,677 41,1062. Low to medium (10-20%)

2 1,334 - 19,053 2,961 422 - 12 23,781 882 3,972 18,927

3. Medium to high (20-40%)

4 9,640 - 49,530 801 - 6,908 293 67,172 11,179 14,161 41,832

unknown unknown 2 14 - 55 - - - - 69 - 69 -


1 23 - 2,698 - - - - 2,721 23 - 2,698

Rimac River Basin 5. Extremely high (>80%)

3 750 - - - 11 - 38 798 760 - 38

United States of America

GHAASBasin3920 5. Extremely high (>80%)

1 - - - 2 1 - - 3 3 - -

Democratic Republic of Congo

CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 2 - - 64,461 - - - - 64,461 64,461 - -

Zambia CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 1 2,939 - 39,857 - 1,187 - 13 43,996 4,127 39,857 13ZAMBEZI 1. Low (<10%) 2 11,928 - 25,836 - 911 - 59 38,733 5 38,728 -

Philippines Coastal water (Camotes Sea)

unknown 1 - 34,031 3,073 - 1 - - 37,105 3,074 34,031 -

Norway GHAASBasin1563 1. Low (<10%) 1 - 27,614 0 31 1,819 - - 29,463 29,463 0 -

Tanzania NILE 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 2 - - - - 2 1 1 -

New Caledonia Coastal water (Coral Sea)

Arid & low water use 1 365 20,378 141 - - - - 20,883 506 20,378 -

Spain Coastal water (Avilés Canyon)


4 3,338 42,302 302 205 46 33 84 46,309 45,988 238 84

GHAASBasin4224 2. Low to medium (10-20%)

1 161 6,771 - - 2 - 4 6,937 6,933 - 4

England THAMES 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - 36 31 - - 67 67 - -

Kazakhstan OB 3. Medium to high (20-40%)

16 14,501 - 35,490 6,464 2,811 20,178 508 79,952 23,801 36,582 19,569

Arid & low water use 1 4,275 - 964 3,515 - - 240 8,994 3,515 4,275 1,204

Nura-Sarysuyskiy Basin Arid & low water use 1 - - 1,397 134 408 - 160 2,099 408 - 1,691

Germany GHAASBasin4673 unknown 1 8,571 - - 79 738 - - 9,388 738 8,571 79

Italy Coastal water (Balearic Sea)

4. High (40-80%) 1 2,744 - 20 640 7 - 12 3,422 7 2,764 652

GHAASBasin4037 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - 20 34 5 - - 60 5 55 -

Bolivia LAKE TITICACA 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 4,150 157 - - 11 4,318 157 - 4,161PARANA 1. Low (<10%) 2 60 - 2,630 228 29 - 19 2,966 257 60 2,649


Appendix 1 continued







Total water input

Category 1 - input

Category 2 - input

Category 3 - input

Peru AMAZONAS 1. Low (<10%) 5 7,151 - 39,792 4,240 - 8,377 96 59,656 10,873 7,677 41,1062. Low to medium (10-20%)

2 1,334 - 19,053 2,961 422 - 12 23,781 882 3,972 18,927


4 9,640 - 49,530 801 - 6,908 293 67,172 11,179 14,161 41,832

unknown unknown 2 14 - 55 - - - - 69 - 69 -


1 23 - 2,698 - - - - 2,721 23 - 2,698


3 750 - - - 11 - 38 798 760 - 38



1 - - - 2 1 - - 3 3 - -


CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 2 - - 64,461 - - - - 64,461 64,461 - -

Zambia CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 1 2,939 - 39,857 - 1,187 - 13 43,996 4,127 39,857 13ZAMBEZI 1. Low (<10%) 2 11,928 - 25,836 - 911 - 59 38,733 5 38,728 -


unknown 1 - 34,031 3,073 - 1 - - 37,105 3,074 34,031 -

Norway GHAASBasin1563 1. Low (<10%) 1 - 27,614 0 31 1,819 - - 29,463 29,463 0 -

Tanzania NILE 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 2 - - - - 2 1 1 -


Arid & low water use 1 365 20,378 141 - - - - 20,883 506 20,378 -



4 3,338 42,302 302 205 46 33 84 46,309 45,988 238 84


1 161 6,771 - - 2 - 4 6,937 6,933 - 4

England THAMES 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - 36 31 - - 67 67 - -


16 14,501 - 35,490 6,464 2,811 20,178 508 79,952 23,801 36,582 19,569

Arid & low water use 1 4,275 - 964 3,515 - - 240 8,994 3,515 4,275 1,204

Nura-Sarysuyskiy Basin Arid & low water use 1 - - 1,397 134 408 - 160 2,099 408 - 1,691

Germany GHAASBasin4673 unknown 1 8,571 - - 79 738 - - 9,388 738 8,571 79


4. High (40-80%) 1 2,744 - 20 640 7 - 12 3,422 7 2,764 652

GHAASBasin4037 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - 20 34 5 - - 60 5 55 -

Bolivia LAKE TITICACA 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 4,150 157 - - 11 4,318 157 - 4,161PARANA 1. Low (<10%) 2 60 - 2,630 228 29 - 19 2,966 257 60 2,649



Appendix 2Overview of 2018 water discharge of our sites by country, river basin and baseline water stress level

Overview of 2018 water discharge of our sites by country, river basin and baseline water stress level (ML)*)

Country River basinBaseline water stress level # of sites

Discharge to surface water

Discharge to seawater / ocean

Discharge to groundwater

Discharge for offsite treatment or disposal

Water exported to a third party

Water entrained in output

Total water output

Category 1 - output

Category 2 - output

Category 3 - output

Australia BURDEKIN 1. Low (<10%) 3 54 - - - - 2,527 8,559 5,979 773 1,807FITZROY 1. Low (<10%) 5 362 - 34 - 3 4,790 18,474 13,578 30 4,866


13 2,488 - - 9 10,668 11,205 39,534 15,167 4,826 19,541

LEICHHARDT RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 5 - - 1,570 149 24,006 14,853 44,864 4,286 48 40,530

MACARTHUR RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 2,296 - - - - 866 7,992 4,875 - 3,116

MURRAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - - - 932 932 - -

FLINDERS RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 18 - - - - 3,193 5,850 2,640 18 3,193

GHAASBasin3728 4. High (40-80%) 1 340 - 214 - - - 993 439 554 -


1 - - - - - - 203 203 - -

GHAASBasin174 Arid & low water use 1 - - - - - - 11,695 11,695 - -

Canada ST.LAWRENCE 1. Low (<10%) 6 106,192 - 16 6,192 - 200 153,210 73,228 60,924 19,057unknown 1 - - - 37 - - 39 39 - -


1. Low (<10%) 1 16,604 - - - 26 18 16,785 138 16,630 18

NOTTAWAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 9,940 - - - - 223 10,196 33 9,940 223

GHAASBasin3336 1. Low (<10%) 1 2,252 2 - - - 222 5,246 5,024 - 222

GHAASBasin523 unknown 1 - 19,098 - - - - 19,417 19,417 - -


15 2,943 - - 4 939 2,592 26,919 23,951 31 2,936

4. High (40-80%) 9 245 - - 10 106 - 6,725 6,370 346 9


1 - - - - - 74 1,135 1,061 - 74

Colombia MAGDALENA 1. Low (<10%) 2 17,310 - 972 - - - 27,827 9,545 18,282 -TORIBIO 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - - - 435 435 - -

Chad LAKE CHAD 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - - - 213 213 - -

Chile unknown Arid & low water use 2 - - - - 152 562 8,760 8,047 - 713


1 667 - - - - 6 1,882 1,876 - 6



1 - - - - - - - - - -


1 261 - - - - 930 17,687 16,496 1,191 -











Total water output

Category 1 - output

Category 2 - output

Category 3 - output

Australia BURDEKIN 1. Low (<10%) 3 54 - - - - 2,527 8,559 5,979 773 1,807FITZROY 1. Low (<10%) 5 362 - 34 - 3 4,790 18,474 13,578 30 4,866


13 2,488 - - 9 10,668 11,205 39,534 15,167 4,826 19,541

LEICHHARDT RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 5 - - 1,570 149 24,006 14,853 44,864 4,286 48 40,530

MACARTHUR RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 2,296 - - - - 866 7,992 4,875 - 3,116

MURRAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - - - 932 932 - -

FLINDERS RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 18 - - - - 3,193 5,850 2,640 18 3,193

GHAASBasin3728 4. High (40-80%) 1 340 - 214 - - - 993 439 554 -


1 - - - - - - 203 203 - -

GHAASBasin174 Arid & low water use 1 - - - - - - 11,695 11,695 - -

Canada ST.LAWRENCE 1. Low (<10%) 6 106,192 - 16 6,192 - 200 153,210 73,228 60,924 19,057unknown 1 - - - 37 - - 39 39 - -


1. Low (<10%) 1 16,604 - - - 26 18 16,785 138 16,630 18

NOTTAWAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 9,940 - - - - 223 10,196 33 9,940 223

GHAASBasin3336 1. Low (<10%) 1 2,252 2 - - - 222 5,246 5,024 - 222

GHAASBasin523 unknown 1 - 19,098 - - - - 19,417 19,417 - -


15 2,943 - - 4 939 2,592 26,919 23,951 31 2,936

4. High (40-80%) 9 245 - - 10 106 - 6,725 6,370 346 9


1 - - - - - 74 1,135 1,061 - 74

Colombia MAGDALENA 1. Low (<10%) 2 17,310 - 972 - - - 27,827 9,545 18,282 -TORIBIO 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - - - 435 435 - -

Chad LAKE CHAD 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - - - 213 213 - -

Chile unknown Arid & low water use 2 - - - - 152 562 8,760 8,047 - 713


1 667 - - - - 6 1,882 1,876 - 6



1 - - - - - - - - - -


1 261 - - - - 930 17,687 16,496 1,191 -











Total water output

Category 1 - output

Category 2 - output

Category 3 - output

Peru AMAZONAS 1. Low (<10%) 5 45,114 - - - 8,377 - 59,656 33,625 17,654 8,3772. Low to medium (10-20%)

2 3,876 - - - - 3 19,497 19,494 - 3


4 52,485 - - - 6,727 2,083 67,172 21,606 40,257 5,310

unknown unknown 2 - - - - - - 69 69 - -


1 2,478 - - - - - 2,735 270 - 2,465


3 254 - - 2 - 4 798 540 254 4



1 1 - - 2 - - 3 1 2 -


CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 2 52,904 - - - - - 64,460 30,050 34,411 -

Zambia CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 1 30,232 - - - - - 43,996 13,764 30,232 -ZAMBEZI 1. Low (<10%) 2 28,539 - - - 742 5 38,733 9,447 29,286 -


unknown 1 - 34,245 - - - 189 37,105 2,860 34,245 -

Norway GHAASBasin1563 1. Low (<10%) 1 - 28,998 - 19 - - 29,463 447 7,090 21,927

Tanzania NILE 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 2 - - - 2 - 1 1


Arid & low water use 1 - 20,299 - - - - 20,883 584 20,299 -



4 - 44,074 - 1 - 314 46,324 44,237 1,771 315


1 - 6,850 - - - - 6,937 6,859 79 -

England THAMES 4. High (40-80%) 1 44 - - 2 - - 66 20 46 -


16 37,894 - - 3,158 436 6,066 79,159 32,075 38,078 9,006

Arid & low water use 1 - - - - - 1 17,068 17,067 - 1

Nura-Sarysuyskiy Basin Arid & low water use 1 293 - - - - 47 2,264 1,923 - 341

Germany GHAASBasin4673 unknown 1 8,896 - - 4 - 77 9,393 417 8,976 -


4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - 1,978 - 62 3,407 1,368 1,978 62

GHAASBasin4037 4. High (40-80%) 1 29 - - 1 - - 60 30 30 -

Bolivia LAKE TITICACA 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,269 - - - - 181 4,353 903 3,269 181PARANA 1. Low (<10%) 2 60 - 2,630 - - 201 2,841 480 2,159 201












Total water output

Category 1 - output

Category 2 - output

Category 3 - output

Peru AMAZONAS 1. Low (<10%) 5 45,114 - - - 8,377 - 59,656 33,625 17,654 8,3772. Low to medium (10-20%)

2 3,876 - - - - 3 19,497 19,494 - 3


4 52,485 - - - 6,727 2,083 67,172 21,606 40,257 5,310

unknown unknown 2 - - - - - - 69 69 - -


1 2,478 - - - - - 2,735 270 - 2,465


3 254 - - 2 - 4 798 540 254 4



1 1 - - 2 - - 3 1 2 -


CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 2 52,904 - - - - - 64,460 30,050 34,411 -

Zambia CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 1 30,232 - - - - - 43,996 13,764 30,232 -ZAMBEZI 1. Low (<10%) 2 28,539 - - - 742 5 38,733 9,447 29,286 -


unknown 1 - 34,245 - - - 189 37,105 2,860 34,245 -

Norway GHAASBasin1563 1. Low (<10%) 1 - 28,998 - 19 - - 29,463 447 7,090 21,927

Tanzania NILE 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - 2 - - - 2 - 1 1


Arid & low water use 1 - 20,299 - - - - 20,883 584 20,299 -



4 - 44,074 - 1 - 314 46,324 44,237 1,771 315


1 - 6,850 - - - - 6,937 6,859 79 -

England THAMES 4. High (40-80%) 1 44 - - 2 - - 66 20 46 -


16 37,894 - - 3,158 436 6,066 79,159 32,075 38,078 9,006

Arid & low water use 1 - - - - - 1 17,068 17,067 - 1

Nura-Sarysuyskiy Basin Arid & low water use 1 293 - - - - 47 2,264 1,923 - 341

Germany GHAASBasin4673 unknown 1 8,896 - - 4 - 77 9,393 417 8,976 -


4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - 1,978 - 62 3,407 1,368 1,978 62

GHAASBasin4037 4. High (40-80%) 1 29 - - 1 - - 60 30 30 -

Bolivia LAKE TITICACA 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,269 - - - - 181 4,353 903 3,269 181PARANA 1. Low (<10%) 2 60 - 2,630 - - 201 2,841 480 2,159 201



Appendix 3Overview of 2018 water use, reuse, recycling, change in storage and efficiency of our sites by country, river basin and baseline water stress level

Overview of 2018 water use, reuse, recycling, change in storage and efficiency of our sites by country, river basin and baseline water stress level (ML)*)

Country River basin Baseline water stress level # of sitesWater used in a task / process Water recycled Water reused

Change in water in storage Reuse efficiency Recycling efficiency

Reuse / recycling efficiency

Australia BURDEKIN 1. Low (<10%) 3 4,763 - 2,180 305 25% - 25%FITZROY 1. Low (<10%) 5 7,224 376 1,068 -2,828 8% 4% 12%

HUNTER 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 13 26,169 141 17,105 -787 30% - 31%

LEICHHARDT RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 5 35,295 49 29,937 -3,891 32% 1% 34%

MACARTHUR RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,625 - 1,020 -936 22% - 22%

MURRAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 932 - 448 - 32% - 32%

FLINDERS RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,902 - 3,174 22 45% - 45%

GHAASBasin3728 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - -33 n/a n/a n/a

GHAASBasin1850 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 1 72 - 0 5 - - -

GHAASBasin174 Arid & low water use 1 11,696 - 697 -1 6% - 6%

Canada ST.LAWRENCE 1. Low (<10%) 6 77,605 10,902 601 -9 - 22% 22%unknown 1 37 - - - - - -


1. Low (<10%) 1 6,002 14,521 489 -309 2% 69% 71%

NOTTAWAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,531 - - - - - -

GHAASBasin3336 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,737 - 3,024 300 45% - 45%

GHAASBasin523 unknown 1 19,423 - 6,330 6 25% - 25%

South Africa LIMPOPO 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 15 20,957 202 9,335 -2,068 25% - 26%4. High (40-80%) 9 6,136 403 2,510 -9 20% 4% 25%

INKOMATI 2. Low to medium (10-20%) 1 504 7 34 75 6% 1% 8%

Colombia MAGDALENA 1. Low (<10%) 2 5,841 65 - -1,838 - 1% 1%TORIBIO 1. Low (<10%) 1 435 - 69 1 14% - 14%

Chad LAKE CHAD 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/a

Chile unknown Arid & low water use 2 10,378 247 6,633 6 31% 1% 32%

Argentina PARANA 5. Extremely high (>80%) 1 585 - 40 - 6% - 6%COLORADO (ARGENTINIA)

5. Extremely high (>80%) 1 - - - - - - -

GHAASBasin154 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 1 14,518 - 42,765 -1,000 75% - 75%







Australia BURDEKIN 1. Low (<10%) 3 4,763 - 2,180 305 25% - 25%FITZROY 1. Low (<10%) 5 7,224 376 1,068 -2,828 8% 4% 12%

HUNTER 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 13 26,169 141 17,105 -787 30% - 31%

LEICHHARDT RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 5 35,295 49 29,937 -3,891 32% 1% 34%

MACARTHUR RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,625 - 1,020 -936 22% - 22%

MURRAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 932 - 448 - 32% - 32%

FLINDERS RIVER 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,902 - 3,174 22 45% - 45%

GHAASBasin3728 4. High (40-80%) 1 - - - -33 n/a n/a n/a

GHAASBasin1850 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 1 72 - 0 5 - - -

GHAASBasin174 Arid & low water use 1 11,696 - 697 -1 6% - 6%

Canada ST.LAWRENCE 1. Low (<10%) 6 77,605 10,902 601 -9 - 22% 22%unknown 1 37 - - - - - -


1. Low (<10%) 1 6,002 14,521 489 -309 2% 69% 71%

NOTTAWAY 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,531 - - - - - -

GHAASBasin3336 1. Low (<10%) 1 3,737 - 3,024 300 45% - 45%

GHAASBasin523 unknown 1 19,423 - 6,330 6 25% - 25%

South Africa LIMPOPO 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 15 20,957 202 9,335 -2,068 25% - 26%4. High (40-80%) 9 6,136 403 2,510 -9 20% 4% 25%

INKOMATI 2. Low to medium (10-20%) 1 504 7 34 75 6% 1% 8%

Colombia MAGDALENA 1. Low (<10%) 2 5,841 65 - -1,838 - 1% 1%TORIBIO 1. Low (<10%) 1 435 - 69 1 14% - 14%

Chad LAKE CHAD 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/a

Chile unknown Arid & low water use 2 10,378 247 6,633 6 31% 1% 32%

Argentina PARANA 5. Extremely high (>80%) 1 585 - 40 - 6% - 6%COLORADO (ARGENTINIA)

5. Extremely high (>80%) 1 - - - - - - -

GHAASBasin154 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 1 14,518 - 42,765 -1,000 75% - 75%







Peru AMAZONAS 1. Low (<10%) 5 14,131 4,156 1,769 - 10% 17% 27%2. Low to medium (10-20%) 2 20,836 129 67,595 4,284 74% 0% 74%

3. Medium to high (20-40%) 4 6,762 1,690 - - - 26% 26%

unknown unknown 2 69 - 69 - 50% - 50%

GHAASBasin978 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 1 5 267 1 -14 1% 98% 98%

Rimac River Basin 5. Extremely high (>80%) 3 506 1,925 1,163 - 36% 27% 63%


GHAASBasin3920 5. Extremely high (>80%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/a


CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 2 3,708 423 10,228 - 70% 3% 73%

Zambia CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/aZAMBEZI 1. Low (<10%) 2 1 - - - - - -


unknown 1 37,094 - - - - - -

Norway GHAASBasin1563 1. Low (<10%) 1 24,919 - 494 - 2% - 2%

Tanzania NILE 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/a


Arid & low water use 1 24,059 442 - - - 2% 2%


3. Medium to high (20-40%) 4 45,718 - 3,385 -15 2% - 2%

GHAASBasin4224 2. Low to medium (10-20%) 1 6,937 - - - - - -

England THAMES 4. High (40-80%) 1 31 - - 1 - - -

Kazakhstan OB 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 16 59,331 94,667 176,655 793 15% 4% 19%Arid & low water use 1 5,084 - 20,887 -8,074 80% - 80%

Nura-Sarysuyskiy Basin Arid & low water use 1 1,978 - 1,049 -165 35% - 35%

Germany GHAASBasin4673 unknown 1 8,797 - 725 -5 8% - 8%


4. High (40-80%) 1 2,764 833 - 15 - 23% 23%

GHAASBasin4037 4. High (40-80%) 1 20 - - - - - -

Bolivia LAKE TITICACA 1. Low (<10%) 1 1,292 - - -36 - - -PARANA 1. Low (<10%) 2 1,759 1,578 180 125 13% 37% 50%








Peru AMAZONAS 1. Low (<10%) 5 14,131 4,156 1,769 - 10% 17% 27%2. Low to medium (10-20%) 2 20,836 129 67,595 4,284 74% 0% 74%

3. Medium to high (20-40%) 4 6,762 1,690 - - - 26% 26%

unknown unknown 2 69 - 69 - 50% - 50%

GHAASBasin978 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 1 5 267 1 -14 1% 98% 98%

Rimac River Basin 5. Extremely high (>80%) 3 506 1,925 1,163 - 36% 27% 63%


GHAASBasin3920 5. Extremely high (>80%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/a


CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 2 3,708 423 10,228 - 70% 3% 73%

Zambia CONGO 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/aZAMBEZI 1. Low (<10%) 2 1 - - - - - -


unknown 1 37,094 - - - - - -

Norway GHAASBasin1563 1. Low (<10%) 1 24,919 - 494 - 2% - 2%

Tanzania NILE 1. Low (<10%) 1 - - - - n/a n/a n/a


Arid & low water use 1 24,059 442 - - - 2% 2%


3. Medium to high (20-40%) 4 45,718 - 3,385 -15 2% - 2%

GHAASBasin4224 2. Low to medium (10-20%) 1 6,937 - - - - - -

England THAMES 4. High (40-80%) 1 31 - - 1 - - -

Kazakhstan OB 3. Medium to high (20-40%) 16 59,331 94,667 176,655 793 15% 4% 19%Arid & low water use 1 5,084 - 20,887 -8,074 80% - 80%

Nura-Sarysuyskiy Basin Arid & low water use 1 1,978 - 1,049 -165 35% - 35%

Germany GHAASBasin4673 unknown 1 8,797 - 725 -5 8% - 8%


4. High (40-80%) 1 2,764 833 - 15 - 23% 23%

GHAASBasin4037 4. High (40-80%) 1 20 - - - - - -

Bolivia LAKE TITICACA 1. Low (<10%) 1 1,292 - - -36 - - -PARANA 1. Low (<10%) 2 1,759 1,578 180 125 13% 37% 50%



Glencore plcBaarermattstrasse 3CH-6340 BaarSwitzerland

Tel: +41 41 709 2000Fax: +41 41 709 3000E-mail: [email protected]

glencore.com

Disclaimer The companies in which Glencore plc directly and indirectly has an interest are separate and distinct legal entities. In this document, “Glencore”, “Glencore Group” and “Group” are used for convenience only where references are made to Glencore plc and its subsidiaries in general. These collective expressions are used for ease of reference only and do not imply any other relationship between the companies. Likewise, the words “we”, “us” and “our” are also used to refer collectively to members of the Group or to those who work for them. These expressions are also used where no useful purpose is served by identifying the particular company or companies.

Date post:	27-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Water Report 2018 - Glencore · Glencore Water Report 2018 4. How we use water ... water scarcity...

Documents