Why Minerals Still Matter for COP30: What’s at Stake if They’re Left Out

Speakers:

• Antonio Hill, advisor, Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI)
• Susana Muhamad, former Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia
• Bryan Bixcul, SIRGE Coalition
• Kuda Manjonjo, Powershift Africa

Watch the full media briefing on the UNFCCC website.

Remarks by Antonio Hill, Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI)

One year ago, at COP29, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres—together with the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and ministers or representatives from 15 countries—launched the report of the UN Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals.

That Panel was announced by the Secretary-General at COP28 in Dubai, and represented a rare space on the global stage where representatives from governments, North and South—notably including China and the United States, as well as other major mineral producers—came together with stakeholders from Indigenous Peoples’ organizations, civil society, and business and industry associations to discuss the challenges and opportunities associated with fast-growing demand for minerals essential to the global energy transition.

The Panel issued a set of principles and recommendations with fairness and sustainability at their core. Its clear message was that achieving fairness and sustainability requires change:

• Change from the deep-rooted inequities that have long plagued the minerals sector and global supply chains.

• Change from the destructive, exploitative practices that have left too many countries with neither wealth nor resources, and turned mining areas into sacrifice zones.

• And a change from the pit-to-port model, where raw materials are simply shipped off to power economies and lifestyles in faraway lands.

The promise was—and still is—a new model for mining and minerals: one that not only safeguards people and planet, but also drives economic opportunity in the countries and communities that depend on it for their economies and livelihoods. Indeed, countries and entire regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa, are planning to develop inclusive, green industrialization strategies built on this new model.

So, what is the relevance to climate action, you may ask? And why insist that the UN climate negotiations take on yet another thorny issue when they are still falling so short on their own objectives?

The answer lies in the direct connection to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Two years ago, the Conference of the Parties (COP) issued its own report card on progress toward Paris Agreement objectives—the Global Stocktake. That report card, for the first time in these negotiations, said that deep emissions cuts are required, and fast, as part of a global shift away from coal, oil, and gas in our energy systems.

COP28 stated that getting back on track to bring global heating back below 1.5 degrees Celsius and meet the Paris objectives requires a range of strategies, including a tripling of renewable energy capacity by 2030, a doubling of energy efficiency, and a transition away from fossil fuels. The IEA has estimated that achieving these targets will require a four- to twenty-fold increase in the volume of minerals needed to produce batteries, solar panels, wind turbines, and other infrastructure for the global energy transition.

To this day, no COP decision has ever even mentioned—let alone addressed—this connection to transition minerals or its implications. That silence must end. The world’s climate governance body cannot turn a blind eye to the risks—or potential benefits—associated with the extraction, processing, trade, and recycling of transition minerals.

Here at COP30, for the first time, we saw draft text tabled that highlights the equity and sustainability dimensions of minerals. It was supported by a broad range of countries, including:

• The African Group of Negotiators (AGN) and Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda

• The Least Developed Countries (LDCs), represented by Sudan

• Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Peru and Uruguay

With the exception of China, we heard no opposition to minerals-related proposals in any open negotiating sessions.

Until yesterday, these proposals appeared in draft text under the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP)—which is entirely appropriate, given that no transition away from fossil fuels is plausible except under the framework of a just transition mechanism, including the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM).

In the latest version of the JTWP text, released before dawn this morning, all references to minerals have disappeared.

We understand that the AGN and the LDCs are still pushing for a reference to be reinserted into the draft decision text, and we call on all Parties to support them.

We hear Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and low- and middle-income transition-mineral-producing countries loud and clear. They are saying they need new opportunities—more and better jobs and diversified economies. They are saying they will not abide another century of inequity, destruction, and exploitation. It is not justified or necessary for climate action, and it is certainly not close to what any of us—or what COP30—can describe in good faith as a just transition.

Quotes from other speakers

Below are selected remarks from the other panelists:

Bryan Bixcul, SIRGE Coalition

“It is deeply disappointing that after years of work from Indigenous defenders and activists, the language on minerals that should have been in the formal text was dropped. Right now, 54 percent of minerals like lithium, copper, cobalt, and nickel are being extracted from the lands of Indigenous Peoples. When you zoom into Latin America, that number is as high as 75 percent. This is having huge impacts — land dispossession, water contamination, soil contamination, rights violations — and often without Indigenous Peoples’ free, prior, and informed consent. It is unbelievable to us that after years of advocacy we are still fighting to keep those references in there. Why? Because we are being told it is too contentious or too political to be included in the text. ”

Kuda Manjonjo, Powershift Africa

"The mine collapsing in the DRC is a reminder of why it’s so important to include minerals in the text. More practically, we’re excited about some of the things being discussed — infrastructure, renewable energy — but you can’t speak about these without including minerals. This starts in the lands, in the mines that supply these things. We were happy when the African Group of Negotiators came forward and said, “This is what we stand for.” The global South is providing the solutions for the global North, and that must be recognized. It’s unfortunate that China is excluding this. We’re providing two solutions: just transition mechanisms, and clarity about what that just transition looks like. If we don’t include minerals in the text, we’ll come back four years later to discuss the same thing, and we don’t want that. We have an opportunity now to make sure no one is left behind."

Susana Muhamad, former Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development, Colombia

“This transition can go in two directions. One direction is a new wave of extractivism that betrays the two pillars needed to stabilize the climate: phasing out fossil fuels and restoring the ecological capacity of the planet, with people at the center. Without clarity, rules, and safeguards, we will only deepen the crisis. Many countries still see the global South as providers of minerals, not as partners in co-developing a just transition. Indigenous Peoples come here with their sweat, their tears, their blood. Is it too much to ask that the text reflect their rights? We shine a light on business, but not on humans. We see two visions: the global North calling for reliability of resources and the global South calling for fairness. We already have tools and expert work that show what a just transition looks like. Not referencing them is a missed opportunity, especially for the Amazon. Without addressing minerals, we risk another round of extractivism, exploitation, and human rights violations that benefit just the few.”