Diplomats preparing for COP30 in the Brazilian city of Belém next month have been discussing an emerging issue that could feature for the first time at a UN climate summit: the global rush for energy transition minerals.
Metals such as copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel and graphite are vital for manufacturing clean energy transition technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and electric vehicles – creating both new opportunities and risks for resource-rich countries.
Soaring demand for minerals – which are also used in the construction, digital and military sectors – provides an opportunity to spur economic development if mining is responsible and producing countries can turn their resources into high-value products.
But increased mining activity has fuelled environmental destruction, deforestation and conflict with communities, from Indonesia – which is opening new coal plants to power its nickel industry – to Zambia and Chile.
-
Ahead of COP30, Brazil grants Petrobras a licence to drill for oil in Amazon region
Brazil has authorised Petrobras to explore for oil off the Amazon coast, a move campaigners say undermines global climate goals -
COP30 needs an implementation forum, not another cover decision
The focus in Belém should be a plan to get results on climate action in the real world rather than haggling over a political statement
In preparatory talks over the past couple of months, developing countries with extensive mineral reserves, notably Latin American and African states, have warned that mining could become the Achilles heel of a just energy transition unless environmental and social safeguards are put in place to ensure the costs and benefits are shared fairly.
Diplomats have discussed the impacts of mining in negotiations on the social and economic implications of climate action, known as “response measures”.
They also raised the issue during talks to define the scope of a work stream to ensure that the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy is fair to workers, protects nature and support economic development, called the Just Transition Work Programme.
Civil society push for COP to tackle transition minerals
Brazil’s COP30 presidency has made an agreement with “concrete outcomes” on a just transition framework a key priority of the summit in Belém.
Separately, the government has spoken about the need for energy transition mineral production to respect human rights and promote sustainable development.
“In its interventions across international forums, Brazil has expressed support for the inclusion of principles that promote transparency, address illicit activities and corruption, encourage value addition in developing countries, and uphold environmental protection and human rights in the context of critical minerals production,” a COP30 spokesperson told Climate Home News.
The inclusion of energy transition minerals in COP30 decisions will require consensus among all countries but observers are cautiously optimistic.
Colombia proposes expert group to advance talks on minerals agreement
“The stars do seem to be aligning for COP30 to be the first to address the role of transition minerals governance in climate action but it’s still not a given,” said Antonio Hill, an advisor on the Natural Resource Governance Institute’s just transitions advocacy work.
“If achieved, it would address a glaring gap in the current global climate and energy transition agenda,” he added.
More than 200 civil society groups have signed an open letter urging countries to address energy transition minerals at COP30.
They called on them to welcome principles and recommendations of a UN panel on establishing transparent, sustainable and equitable mineral supply chains and to strengthen mineral governance.
A “timely and necessary” discussion
In a submission ahead of talks on the implications of climate measures last month, a coalition of 134 developing countries – known as the G77 and China – called for a “dedicated dialogue” on energy transition minerals.
It described it as “both timely and necessary” to enable countries to consider how growing mineral demand relates to their development priorities and climate plans.
The current dynamic “presents a serious risk of entrenching unsustainable development trajectories, undermining efforts toward industrial diversification, and jeopardising the prospects of a truly just transition for developing countries”, it said.
More than half of energy transition mineral reserves are estimated to be located on or near Indigenous land and a large majority of mines are located in biodiversity hotspots. Indigenous peoples are widely acknowledged to play a key role in preserving tropical forests that act as some of the world’s most important carbon sinks.
The issue was also raised during talks on defining a just energy transition framework.
The Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), which includes Colombia, Chile and Peru, warned that deforestation and land use changes caused by mineral extraction could undermine climate action and affect people’s rights to a healthy environment.
“A just transition approach could offer unique opportunities towards fairness and equity in the mining industry” and contribute to local development, the group said.
Colombia, which is proposing that countries discuss options for a binding agreement on minerals at the UN Environment Assembly in December, went further and called for the designation of “no-go areas” for mining.
No-go mining zones
Colombia’s demands are echoed by Indigenous groups.
Bryan Bixcul is from the Maya-Tz’utujil Indigenous group in Guatemala and serves as the global coordinator of the Securing Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in the Green Economy (SIRGE) coalition. He told Climate Home the Just Transition Work Programme will fail to be a tool for justice if it fails to directly address the harms caused by mining.
Efforts to green lithium extraction face scrutiny over water use
Key to SIRGE’s demand is for the text to make explicit references to the rights of Indigenous peoples, including those in voluntary isolation.
Bixcul said the text should include an obligation to establish “no-go” or exclusion zones on and around the land of the world’s remaining uncontacted Indigenous groups, which cannot give their consent to mining projects close to their lands. This, he said, violates the principle of no contact.
Protecting uncontacted Indigenous peoples
Videos have emerged showing members of an uncontacted Indigenous group warning outsiders away and begging for food on a site where forest was being cleared for nickel mining on Halmahera island in Indonesia.
NGO Survival International warned that the uncontacted Hongana Manyawa people, who live on the island, faced “a threat of genocide” because of nickel mining used to make batteries for electric vehicles.
In September, Norway’s government pension fund divested from French miner Eramet, which operates a large mine on the island, citing “unacceptable risk” of human rights violations, including forced contact. Eramet denied the presence of uncontacted groups in or near its concession.
“If countries don’t take a stance to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation, they will fail human rights, not just Indigenous people’s rights,” said Bixcul.
Brazil, which has promised the largest Indigenous participation in COP history in Belém, has called on countries to protect the demarcation of Indigenous lands as a key policy tool to address the climate crisis.
The post COP30 could confront “glaring gap” in clean energy agenda: mining appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP30 could confront “glaring gap” in clean energy agenda: mining
June Rubis is a steering group committee member for the Cali Fund, from Sarawak in Malaysian Borneo.
At COP16 in Cali, governments made a significant commitment: at least half of the funding from the new Cali Fund should support the self-identified needs of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including women and youth. It was a watershed moment for multilateral benefit-sharing.
The challenge now is to translate that commitment into access arrangements that recognise the different institutions, priorities and decision-making processes of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
For generations, biodiversity and traditional Indigenous knowledge have provided significant value to companies who depend on nature’s genetic diversity to discover new drugs that fight diseases, create products that improve health, and grow crops resilient to extreme heat and flooding events. While some compounds are sampled directly from the source country, increasingly the digital blueprints are held in online public databases which are freely accessible to use for innovation and research.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
The Cali Fund was established at COP16 to encourage commercial users of Digital Sequence Information, or DSI, to share benefits arising from its use. Estimates suggest it could generate over $3.5 billion a year – a stark contrast to the modest $10,656 currently committed to the fund from just five SMEs, underlining how much progress must be made at COP17 over the next two weeks.
The COP16 decision that set up the fund offers two routes for money to reach Indigenous Peoples and local communities: through government authorities, and through direct payments to institutions identified by Indigenous Peoples and local communities themselves.
Varied ways of organising
Indigenous Peoples and local communities organise through a wide range of institutions. Some have national or regional organisations experienced in managing international grants. Others work through territorial organisations, customary institutions, community associations, cooperatives or networks. Some have professional finance teams and audited accounts; others have extensive experience governing territories, collective resources or conservation work without having been organised around international funding requirements.
For direct access, some questions are already apparent. Which institutions should be able to receive funds? How should they be identified? What fiduciary standards should apply? How should safeguards and accountability work where institutional capacities differ? What support may be needed where institutions have strong community mandates but less experience with international finance?
Comment: Protecting nature is a public duty, not a Wall Street profit opportunity
If access is designed mainly around institutions that already meet the expectations of large international finance mechanisms, early funding will tend to favour those already familiar to funders. They will gain further experience and become better positioned for future funding, while institutions with less administrative capacity may remain outside the system despite strong community mandates and long histories of stewardship.
These first decisions matter most, because they set the terms for everyone who follows.
The role of intermediaries requires care. Some Indigenous organisations may want a fiscal host to hold and manage funds on their behalf. Communities may choose to work through an NGO they trust. Government-facilitated arrangements may work well in particular national contexts.
What matters is the function an intermediary performs and the authority that comes with it. Providing administrative support is different from deciding which Indigenous organisations qualify, which priorities can receive support, or how success will be assessed. Direct access means communities keep that decision-making authority.
Decision-making power
The COP16 decision refers to institutions that Indigenous Peoples and local communities identify. But authority among Indigenous Peoples does not sit in one kind of body. It may sit with territorial organisations, customary institutions, community associations or combinations of these. Legal recognition and customary authority do not always align neatly.
Global deforestation slowed in 2025 but Brazil’s election could undo “fragile” gains
An important feature of the Cali Fund’s governance is that Indigenous Peoples and local communities participate as full members of the Steering Committee, rather than as observers. Seven Indigenous Peoples and local community representatives, one from each of the seven socio-cultural regions, participate in consensus-based decision-making alongside representatives of governments and UN entities. Six additional representatives from civil society, scientific institutions and the private sector participate as observers.
That representation carries responsibility. Institutional legitimacy, access and representation take different forms across the seven socio-cultural regions. Indigenous Peoples and local communities members therefore have an important role in bringing those differences into the Fund’s governance and in ensuring that arrangements developed for one context do not become the assumed model for everyone else.
Safeguards and clear responsibilities
COP17 can establish the core principles and direction, while allowing operational pathways to develop in ways that respond to different regional contexts. The decisions countries take in Yerevan will shape how that flexibility is realised in practice.
The choices made around access will influence which institutions are able to participate, which routes become established and which forms of authority are recognised within the funding architecture. The aim should be an architecture with enough structure to maintain confidence while allowing for different forms of Indigenous and community governance.
A credible direct-access pathway will need safeguards, financial oversight and clear responsibilities. This would give the 50% commitment a stronger institutional foundation.
The Cali Fund’s importance will ultimately depend not only on how much funding reaches Indigenous Peoples and local communities, but on whether they are able to determine how the money is accessed, governed and used. This requires access pathways that recognise their institutions, priorities and decision-making processes, rather than requiring them to conform to a single predetermined model.
The post COP17 must settle who decides how Cali Fund money is disbursed appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP17 must settle who decides how Cali Fund money is disbursed
The UK government has approved extraction at the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea, despite acknowledging that this decision could make it harder for Britain to convince other countries to move away from fossil fuel production.
UK energy secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh approved the drilling on Wednesday after months of high-profile debate, fuelled in part by interventions from US President Donald Trump. She argued that the project would boost energy security in the wake of the Middle East fossil fuel crisis, protect hundreds of jobs and add £2.9 billion ($3.88bn) to the UK economy.
She said Jackdaw’s gas would be cleaner than imported gas and would not prevent the UK from meeting its legally-binding carbon targets and its goal of net zero by 2050. As the field is already licensed, she said extraction was consistent with the Labour Party’s 2024 manifesto promise not to issue any new oil and gas licenses.
The same morning, the government announced a new Energy Wealth Fund to reinvest oil and gas revenues in the climate transition. It will start with £2 billion ($2.67bn) from the government and be topped up over time with tax revenues from offshore oil and gas production.
Climate campaigners in the UK and abroad were quick to condemn the decision, while a leading legal expert told Climate Home News it goes against the advice of the International Court of Justice. Meanwhile, the government’s own documents reveal that it recognises the drilling could damage the UK’s reputation and its ability to push forward the global transition away from fossil fuels.
“Climate leadership” blow
The 92-page decision document says Fahnbulleh “acknowledges that international standing on climate is important and accepts that a decision to grant consent may not further the UK’s international climate leadership.”
It adds: “She acknowledges concerns about the potential implications for the UK’s credibility and influence – including the difficulty inherent in encouraging other states to move away from fossil fuel production while the UK continues, in a limited and transitional way, to draw on its own domestic resources.”
While noting that Jackdaw has not been issued with a new license – just permission to extract gas – the document says Fahnbulleh “accepts this does not fully resolve the underlying tension in the UK’s position” but “considers this alongside the substance of the UK’s wider record [on emissions reduction], which remains significant”.
It continues that she accepts these concerns are “legitimate” and weigh against approving gas extraction, but only gives this argument a “moderate negative weight” set against the benefits of gas production.
“Huge” wrong signal
In international climate talks, the UK has long supported the transition away from fossil fuels and is one of very few major oil and gas producers to ban new licenses. Across the North Sea, the Norwegian government continues to make offshore areas available for oil and gas exploration through annual licensing rounds.
Climate experts and campaigners shared the concern, acknowledged in the decision document, that approving Jackdaw could set a precedent for fossil fuel production elsewhere. Sam Fankhauser, professor of climate change economics at Oxford University, said the direct climate impact of Jackdaw is “much smaller than the debate around it would suggest” but the “wrong signal it sends, however, is huge”.
-
Carbon capture industry faces tough future, as UK raids green spending
Despite a spate of projects getting underway, the mood at an industry conference in London this week was low with government subsidies set to shrink -
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
More than 30 countries have failed to submit an NDC, but only three have repeatedly ignored the committee’s efforts to engage with them -
Turkish giant sponsoring COP31 cut climate goals then cashed in on oil boom
COP31 sponsors should be screened for “climate integrity”. Yet Koç Holding has become a top partner while its oil refiner runs flat out and its climate targets slip
Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said that while Jackdaw’s output will be very small, “it will signal to other fossil fuel producers that they too should carry on with business as usual, less than a month before the COP31”.
Kenyan campaigner Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, called the decision “a serious blow to Britain’s international climate credibility” as “the UK cannot expect developing countries to move away from fossil fuels while giving the green light to new drilling in its own backyard”.
International Court of Justice
In July 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advised that government failure to take appropriate climate action “including through fossil fuel production” may amount to an internationally wrongful act.
The UK voted in favour of a United Nations resolution welcoming the advisory opinion. Yet, in its Jackdaw decision document, it notes that the ICJ opinion is not legally binding and says the UK does not accept the court’s opinion that the customary international law duty to prevent significant harm to the environment applies to climate change.
Fahnbulleh concludes that, although it will have “significant effect on the environment”, gas drilling in Jackdaw “would not lead to significant harm to the environment” – and so does not breach any duty to prevent such harm. Instead, the government document says the duty should be considered “as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation”.
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, who led Vanuatu’s legal team pushing for the ICJ’s advisory opinion, told Climate Home News that treating the duty as a matter of policy rather than legal obligation is “not how international law works”. “An advisory opinion is not a judgement,” she said, “but it states the law as it stands, and that law binds the UK whether or not it accepts it.”
“Even as a matter of policy,” she added, “the decision asks the wrong question: whether Jackdaw on its own would cause significant harm. The Court found that accumulated emissions are already causing significant harm. What matters is whether approving new production is consistent with the stringent due diligence the duty requires.”
Public support for decision
While the decision was criticised by climate campaigners and the opposition Green party, polling reported by Politico suggests that 55% of British adults support drilling at Jackdaw, with just 14% opposed. Even supporters of the UK’s net zero target back new drilling by more than two to one, the polling found.
Jackdaw is one of two North Sea oil and gas fields the government has been debating whether to extract more from for months. While Jackdaw is a small gas field, the other, Rosebank, is a much larger field that holds mostly oil.
Rosebank’s emissions are estimated to be around seven times higher than Jackdaw’s. Fahnbulleh told Sky News that Rosebank is “different” to Jackdaw because its oil would be exported, whereas Jackdaw’s gas will be used in the UK, adding that she will consider it “in its own right”.