Countries gathered at the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) this week failed to back a proposal to establish a panel of experts to look at ways to limit the environmental harm caused by mining, agreeing instead to hold more talks on tackling the issue.
A draft resolution proposed by Colombia and Oman had sought to make mineral supply chains more transparent and sustainable amid booming demand for the minerals and metals needed to manufacture batteries, electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines as well as digital and military technologies.
It had called for the creation of an expert group to identify options for binding and non-binding international instruments to shape global action.
But amid divisions among nations and staunch opposition by some governments to any process that could eventually lead to binding instruments, country delegates meeting in Nairobi only agreed to a watered-down proposal to hold “dialogues” on “enhancing international cooperation on [the] sustainable management of minerals and metals”.
Governments also agreed to discuss how to recover minerals from waste, known as tailings, best practices for the sustainable management of minerals and metals, and strengthening the technological, financial and scientific capabilities of developing countries.
-
Proposal for global minerals deal meets opposition as China looks away
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia oppose a UN resolution for nations to start discussing options for a global minerals agreement to reduce the environmental impacts of mining -
Mining is destroying our homes: We need global binding rules for mineral extraction
Amid a rush for minerals needed for the energy transition, voluntary safeguards and corporate goodwill are insufficient to protect nature and human rights -
Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?
As countries rush to secure supplies of the materials needed to ramp up clean energy, a push for stronger governance rules is gathering momentum
Pedro Cortes, Colombia’s ambassador to Kenya, told an event on Wednesday that the negotiations had been “difficult” but that the agreement will enable governments to continue the discussion.
Mauricio Cabrera Leal, Colombia’s former vice minister of environmental policy who initiated work on the proposal last year, told Climate Home News that the outcome was not what he had envisaged but said it was “good” in light of the “hard” geopolitics at play in Nairobi.
Colombia’s push for a minerals treaty
Colombia has called for an international minerals treaty to define rules and standards to make mineral value chains more traceable and sustainable as the world scrambles to boost supplies of materials needed for the energy transition.
For resource-rich developing countries, demand for these minerals is an opportunity to diversify their economies, spur development and create jobs. But the extraction and processing of minerals also brings the risk of environmental damage and human rights abuses.
Victims of Zambian copper mine disaster demand multibillion dollar payout
Ambassador Cortes told an event on the sidelines of the UNEA that more stringent global oversight was needed.
“While various efforts have sought to promote the environmentally sustainable management of mining through voluntary guidelines, national legislations and industry-led initiatives, it is clear that greater international cooperation is needed at this critical moment to elevate ambition and accelerate action,” he said.
“This action will be essential to balance the growing demand for minerals required for the renewable energy transition with the imperative of ensuring environmental integrity and social sustainability,” he added.
Opposition to binding rules
But numerous governments – including Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran as well as resource-rich Chile, Peru, Argentina and some African countries such as Uganda – opposed any discussion of possible binding rules on mineral value chains, several observers with access to the negotiations told Climate Home News.
While UNEA resolutions are not legally binding, they can kick off a process towards binding agreements, such as the launch of negotiations on a treaty to end plastics pollution – a process that has since stalled.
China, which dominates the processing and refining of minerals and metals, stayed largely quiet during the negotiations. But Nana Zhao, an official from the Chinese delegation, told Climate Home News that China was “satisfied” with the wording of the resolution.
The UNEA should stay focused on environmental matters and not bring in issues relating to supply chains, she added.
An opening for more co-operation
Campaigners, who are calling for binding rules to prevent environmental and social harms linked to mineral extraction and processing, expressed disappointment at the agreement but welcomed the prospect of further talks on the issue.
“The initial aim was to start with negotiations for [a] binding treaty and to get countries together to start talking about joint rules,” Johanna Sydow, a resource policy expert who heads the international environmental policy division of Germany’s Heinrich-Böll Foundation, told Climate Home News.
The agreement reached in Nairobi is “very weak” compared to that initial proposal but it creates the “foundation to stay in dialogue and try to find solutions and work on something constructively”, she said. “This is an opening for more co-operation”.
UN taskforce to deliver equitable supply chains
On the sidelines of the assembly, UN agencies launched a taskforce on critical energy transition minerals to coordinate UN activities in building more transparent, sustainable and equitable supply chains.
The taskforce will help deliver on recommendations by a panel of experts convened by UN Secretary-General António Guterres which called for putting equity and human rights at the core of mineral value chains.
It will be chaired by the UN Environment Programme, UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the UN Development Programme, and draw on expertise across the UN system.
-
EU refuses to review “strategic” mineral projects for energy transition
Brussels says requests by NGOs to reassess the “strategic” designation of new mining projects because of environmental concerns are “unfounded” -
South Africa’s platinum mine dumps get a second look as clean energy lifts demand
Mining firms say extracting minerals from tailings is a sustainable way to boost global supplies, but local communities want to see benefits this time around -
AI and satellite data help researchers map world’s transition minerals rush
Filling “mind-boggling” gaps in mining data will make it easier to track the environmental impact of surging global appetite for critical minerals, experts say
Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, said the sustainable management of minerals cuts across trade, environment and development.
“Multilateral cooperation and partnerships beyond the UN [are] absolutely essential for us to respond to what we can see is a driving demand and hunger for minerals and metals. But before we have a ‘race’ to this, let’s make sure we look at these aspects that can lead to injustice, environmental harms, biodiversity loss, water pollution and human rights [harms],” she added.
Suneeta Kaimal, president and CEO of the Natural Resource Governance Institute and a member of the UN panel of experts, said the taskforce was “a timely and necessary step toward making the panel’s ambitions real”.
“It must work boldly and inclusively with communities and civil society, and it will need political commitment and financial resources – not only technical efforts – to drive a just and equitable new paradigm that safeguards people, ecosystems and economies in producer countries,” she said.
The post Push for global minerals deal meets opposition, more talks agreed appeared first on Climate Home News.
Push for global minerals deal meets opposition, more talks agreed
The launch of the Africa Energy Bank (AEB) has been put back yet again, raising doubts about the institution’s future ability to finance fossil fuel projects – its main objective – as global lenders retreat from such investments over climate concerns, experts told Climate Home News.
The bank, which had been billed to launch in September after a series of delays, is now scheduled to begin operations in November, according to the head of the African Energy Chamber, an advocacy body for the continent’s oil and gas sector.
Even as the world aims to transition away from fossil fuels, many African leaders have made clear they want to continue exploring and extracting the continent’s large oil and gas deposits – estimated at around 125 billion barrels of crude and over 600 trillion cubic feet of gas – to boost economic development.
As a group, Africa sided with a number of powerful oil-and-gas producing nations in blocking progress on negotiations to craft a global roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels at last year’s UN COP30 climate talks, although some countries did individually support the proposal.
-
Campaigners oppose Dangote’s planned Kenya refinery over climate and ecological risks
Plans to build Africa’s second largest oil refinery in ecologically sensitive region criticised as “environmental recklessness” -
Tanzania pushed African nations to oppose fossil fuel transition at COP30
While chairing the African group at the summit, the gas-dependent nation advised the continent’s ministers to block language on transitioning away from fossil fuels
Meanwhile, major projects under development across the continent – including the 1,443-km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) and Dangote’s 700,000-barrel-per-day Kenyan refinery – show that African governments see oil and gas as playing a significant role in meeting their energy and economic needs for many years to come.
In 2022, at a gathering of the African Petroleum Producers’ Organization (APPO) in oil-rich Angola, ministers from its member states adopted a resolution to create the Africa Energy Bank to finance projects for the production, use and trade of oil, gas and broader energy sources.
African control over energy resources
An article on the APPO website explains that the bank was conceived as a way to overcome “disenchantment” with fossil fuels among “the international community” which it said had crystallised around the “energy transition” concept.
“If Western countries, after having long taken advantage of the energy sources they now revile to develop, can afford the luxury of abandoning them, this is not the case in Africa,” it adds, noting that many of the continent’s economies are still largely dependent on oil and gas revenues.
A separate web page about the bank, also hosted on APPO’s website, says its objectives include financing the exploration, production and refining of oil and gas, as well as supporting member states in transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources “while ensuring energy security”.
Said Addi, a former executive with Shell and energy commodities trading house Gunvor, said the new bank was judged necessary because financing for hydrocarbons from many traditional international lenders has become constrained.
In trying to fill this financing gap, Africa is not simply setting up another fund to support oil and gas, he added. “It is also an attempt to give African countries greater control over how their energy resources and infrastructure are financed,” he explained.
Nigeria to host the AEB
The energy bank – a joint initiative of APPO and the African Export–Import Bank (Afreximbank) – has so far suffered several delays and is almost two years behind schedule. The initial plan was to start operations in January 2025, with Nigeria as the host country, but the bank’s opening was delayed to June of that year to allow Nigeria time to finalise the construction of the bank’s headquarters in Abuja.
After the government announced the completion of the offices in late November 2025, a new launch date was set for January 2026, which was moved back to April, June and then September. Now it has shifted again to November, raising concerns that the institution may be losing momentum.
Former Shell executive Addi said that if the capital is eventually paid in, the bank becomes operational and its first projects are commercially credible, then the delays will be regarded as normal teething troubles in setting up a multilateral institution. But, he added, scepticism will be justified if it continues to stall.
Uganda may see lower oil revenues than expected as costs rise and demand falls
Baron Lamarré, an oil and gas expert and former Petronas oil trader, said that missing “three deadlines in a row is not normal”, and warned that if the timeline slips again, “the story flips from ‘ambitious institution finding its footing’ to ‘good idea that lost momentum before it found any’.”
The Nigerian government, APPO and Afreximbank did not respond to requests for comment by the time of publication.
The funding challenge
The Africa Energy Bank is targeting base capital of $5 billion, with plans to scale up to $120 billion within five years by mobilising private-sector funds. However, it is expected to start operations with initial seed capital of $500 million.
The funding plan is to have the 18 member countries of the APPO contribute $83 million each to the bank as equity for a combined $1.5 billion. Afreximbank, other non-APPO African countries and investors outside the continent are expected to provide the remaining $3.5 billion.
But even the initial $500 million has not been easy to mobilise. In May, APPO Secretary-General Farid Ghezali called on members to deliver on their pledges towards the startup goal before the end of June. But the delays suggest this may not have been met, with experts saying Africa may be finding it difficult to self-fund its oil and gas projects in the absence of international capital.
Lamarré said every extension of the deadline points to the fact that “raising fossil fuel capital in Africa without the majors and their financing networks is brutally hard”.
Why the global electrification agenda misses the point on Africa’s energy crisis
Since 2020, Western lenders, export credit agencies and insurers have been in steady retreat from African hydrocarbons, he said, while oil majors are divesting their African assets, handing over fields to smaller local operators whose credit ratings are not high enough to borrow cheaply.
Even capital from China and the Gulf, which has partially filled the gap, cannot match the volume, tenor or pricing that Western investors once offered, Lamarré argued.
“If mobilising the first $500 million of seed capital [for the AEB] has taken this long, that’s the clearest signal yet of how steep the climb to $120 billion looks,” he said, noting that the continent’s energy financing gap is as large as $30 billion-$45 billion per year.
Africa’s investment landscape, meanwhile, has been shifting. While foreign direct investment dropped from a 2024 peak, inflows remained roughly one-third above the continent’s long-term average in 2025, according to the 2026 World Investment Report from UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). They are concentrated in a few sectors including critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies, battery manufacturing and advanced industrial production.
At the same time, data on global energy investment from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that fossil fuel investment in Africa has declined over the last decade.
“Trojan horse” for fossil fuels
While the Africa Energy Bank struggles to get off the ground, climate campaigners have criticised its primary aim of financing oil and gas on the continent at a time when the world is starting to move away from high-carbon fuels to cleaner alternatives.
Bhekumuzi Dean Bhebhe, founder of Africa Change Lab, described the bank as a “Trojan horse”, arguing that its focus on fossil fuel financing runs counter to the global energy transition and the African Union’s Agenda 2063 goals of sustainable development and inclusive growth.
The energy bank, he warned, “risks locking Africa into a new cycle of debt, dependency and fossil fuel entrenchment”, adding that its financing blueprint does not pave the way for a climate-resilient future. “In truth, it is to deepen the same extractive, carbon-heavy pathways that the continent should be moving away from,” he added.
Ugandan farmers use British court to try to stop East Africa oil pipeline
Kenya-based climate and energy expert Joab Okanda said the AEB’s plan to finance oil and gas is “a misplaced priority” and it should instead back clean energy in line with the policies of some of Africa’s major export markets like Europe.
In addition, the new bank could struggle to mobilise enough resources to advance large-scale oil and gas projects, he added, noting that its proposed $5-billion initial capital is equivalent to the cost of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline alone.
The AEB’s aim of backing more fossil fuels should be flipped “to support countries that are oil-dependent to start working on their transition plans”, Okanda said.
The post Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes appeared first on Climate Home News.
Launch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes