Connect with us

Published

10 months ago

on

Electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and other clean energy technologies are driving booming demand for metals and minerals – including copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel – which many countries now consider “critical” to their security. But will procuring those supplies harm the environment and human rights?

Across the world, from Africa and Asia to Latin America, a growing number of mining projects has been associated with nature destruction, pollution, labour abuses and conflict, while local communities often shoulder much of the cost and share little of the benefit.

As the scramble for minerals for the energy transition rises to the top of the political agenda, there are mounting calls for international cooperation to ensure production of these resources is sustainable and equitable, alongside a flurry of proposed initiatives for global standards and stronger governance.

Explainer: Why the world is racing to mine critical minerals 

Colombia is drumming up support for a legally binding minerals agreement based on the model of global negotiations for a plastic treaty. An alliance of NGOs wants to get the issue onto the agenda of this year’s COP30 climate talks, and experts are calling for a new materials data hub.

The United Nations, which oversees the most advanced efforts to create a global framework for energy transition minerals, insists it remains the best-placed broker for thrashing out global norms, despite a funding crisis.

This month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) joined a chorus of voices calling for more cooperation on the issue. In its latest Critical Minerals Outlook report, it warned of growing risks of disruption to mineral supply chains as the market becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, with China controlling around 70% of the refining of 19 out of 20 strategic minerals analysed by the agency.

Rising copper demand fuels concern over pollution and rights abuses

Meanwhile, since returning to the White House, US President Donald Trump has taken a new approach to resource diplomacy, negotiating access to Ukraine’s mineral resources as a condition for American support and eyeing mineral-rich Greenland and Canada.

“It’s climate change, security, development and geopolitical elements intersecting – which I think is why there’s so much appetite and urgency around improving multilateralism to address this really complex issue,” Erica Westenberg, director of governance programmes at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, told Climate Home News.

Plan for an international minerals treaty

Colombia’s proposal for a global minerals treaty is motivated by the aim of rooting out extensive illegal gold mining, a source of environmental destruction and pollution that is threatening people’s health in the Amazon nation.

“[Existing] norms and standards are optional, and this isn’t good enough,” Mauricio Cabrera Leal, Colombia’s vice minister for environmental policy, told a conference at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris earlier this month.

“We need to have a mandatory agreement to assess the whole value chain with transparency and traceability at the international level,” he added.

Colombia plans to put forward a resolution for countries to begin negotiations on a binding minerals treaty at the UN Environment Assembly in December. If approved, countries would then need to decide on the scope of the agreement, Cabrera Leal told Climate Home – an approach that has proved highly contentious and so far unsuccessful in talks for a plastic treaty.

But the idea has received a “good response” from some African and European nations, he added. And others agree with the principle.

A group of Bolivians demonstrate at the doors of the Legislative Assembly building during a protest against Bolivia’s lithium contracts with Russian and Chinese companies, in La Paz, Bolivia, February 13, 2025. REUTERS/Claudia Morales

A high-level council of former ministers and leaders of international institutions convened by the Paris Peace Forum to reflect on mineral supply chain challenges has also called for an international agreement on resource management and the creation of a separate repository for mineral data.

Justin Vaïsse, director general of the Paris Peace Forum, told the OECD conference it was “now time to think seriously” about these proposals.

Observers in the mining sector caution that any agreement must build on hard-learned lessons and existing best practices, including the need to ensure that affected communities and Indigenous people are at the negotiating table.

An international materials agency?

The co-chairs of the International Resource Panel (IRP), a body of policy experts established by the UN Environment Programme, meanwhile are advocating for the creation of an international materials agency.

This data hub would cover all the materials needed to deliver on global climate and development goals, including critical minerals. It would help make supply chains more transparent and track their environmental implications.

Solar squeeze: US tariffs threaten panel production and jobs in Thailand

Janez Potočnik, the IRP’s co-chair, told Climate Home the proposed agency would “complement” the IEA’s growing work on the security of mineral supplies by considering the impacts of mineral production and consumption models with a mandate that could evolve over time to include international negotiations on materials.

Potočnik said the proposal is backed by the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Economic Forum – demonstrating the private sector’s interest in more transparent data.

UN push for better standards

Last year, UN boss António Guterres convened a panel of governments, international organisations and experts which defined seven principles to underpin the responsible, fair and sustainable extraction of energy transition minerals.

The UN is now expected to release a plan to implement those principles and appoint an advisory group to draft a global framework to make mineral supply chains more transparent, traceable and accountable.

Efforts to define responsible mining are not new. But there are currently around 200 voluntary mining standards and “a lot of them are not the best standards”, said Sascha Raabe, who heads the UN Industrial Development Organization’s (UNIDO) Global Alliance for Responsible and Green Minerals. It aims to bring together governments, the private sector, NGOs and communities to help countries develop sustainability policies that can add value to their resources.

Europe’s lithium rush leaves mineral-rich communities in the dark

UNIDO’s alliance will also work alongside other UN agencies to define a set of concrete environmental, social and governance criteria – such as a living wage – for assessing existing voluntary mining standards, Raabe explained.

“It’s important that the UN set up these criteria to give direction to the private sector and consumers and create a global level playing field,” said Raabe, adding that “the UN is the best forum to bring these global goals together”.

One of the largest efforts to harmonise voluntary mining standards is the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative, which is being developed by four mining industry groups covering 100 companies. But campaign groups have criticised the industry’s efforts to self-regulate as “weak” and at “risk of creating a race to the bottom”.

Instead, they back the The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance’s standard, which is overseen by a collaborative process including industry, civil society, labour groups and community representatives.

Putting minerals on the COP30 agenda

Campaigners are also pushing for stronger links between the challenges of obtaining minerals for the clean energy transition and the UN’s climate and nature policy processes.

At UN biodiversity talks in Colombia last year, governments agreed to “avoid or, if not possible, minimise, the negative impacts of climate actions on biodiversity”, without singling out transition minerals.

Now a coalition of NGOs is urging the Brazilian COP30 presidency to put ways to tackle the environmental and social risks associated with these minerals on the agenda of the UN climate summit in Belém in November.

‘The state doesn’t want to know’: Doctors raise alarm on children’s health crisis in Chile’s copper heartland

Campaigners want governments at COP30 to recognise the risks posed by unmanaged extraction to global climate and biodiversity goals, endorse the work of the UN’s advisory group on responsible sourcing and designate “no-go” mining zones in climate-critical ecosystems and Indigenous territories.

“This is a once-in-a-generation chance for Brazil to lead on climate justice and ensure that the clean energy transition doesn’t come at the expense of frontline communities, the planet’s last intact forests, and other critical ecosystems that should be marked as no-go zones,” said Emily Iona Stewart, head of policy for Global Witness’s transition minerals campaign.

The Brazilian environment ministry and COP30 Presidency did not respond to Climate Home’s requests for comment by the time of publication.

The post Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition

Published

10 hours ago

on

March 9, 2026

By

A landmark conference hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands will aim to lay the foundations for renewed talks on transitioning away from fossil fuels at COP31, though organisers say it remains unclear what concrete outcomes it will deliver.

The First Conference on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels will take place in April in the city of Santa Marta, on Colombia’s Caribbean coast, where first-moving countries, states and cities will seek to restart last year’s stalled push for a global roadmap away from coal, oil and gas.

Bastiaan Hassing, head of international climate policy for the Dutch government, told an online briefing last week that the “most obvious” impact of the conference would be for its hosts to report back to the UN climate summit on what was agreed in Santa Marta.

“Ideally, but this is also more complicated, we discuss with each other (at COP) what next steps we could take in the implementation, for instance, of paragraph 28 of the COP decision in Dubai, which talks about the global transition away from fossil fuels,” Hassings said.

He noted that there are many options for how the conference can influence UN talks on implementing the global transition away from fossil fuels, but the exact possibilities would depend on the outcome of the talks. “Rest assured that we will be looking into this,” he added.

At last year’s COP30, a bloc of 80 countries, including small island states, as well as some Latin American, European, and African countries, called for the creation of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels.

But major oil and gas producers and consumers blocked the initiative in Belém. As a compromise, Brazil’s COP presidency promised to draft proposals for two voluntary roadmaps: one to end deforestation and another to guide the transition away from fossil fuels.

    Brazil has launched consultations seeking input for those plans, asking governments and stakeholders about technological and economic barriers, climate justice considerations and examples of best practice. Last week, COP30 president André Corrêa do Lago told Brazilian media that he would hold discussions on his roadmap proposal at the Santa Marta conference.

    Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres told reporters last week that “this is the moment to be honest about the challenges involved in transitioning away from fossil fuels”.

    “It is not easy. It involves commitments from both the Global North and South. It involves interests and tensions at the subnational level,” she added. “Yet none of this diminishes its urgency or the need to reach agreements at the international multilateral level”.

    Process to end fossil fuels

    Vélez Torres said she hoped the Santa Marta meeting would help establish an ongoing process to advance discussions that often stall in the formal UN negotiations, where decisions are made by consensus and fossil fuel producers resist stronger language.

    “This is the first conference, and we want it to be followed by another. We also want to establish a technical secretariat to sustain these debates,” said Vélez Torres, who added that the initiative would be “articulated with [the] COP30 and COP31” presidencies.

    Colombia has been one of the few fossil fuel-producing countries that pledged to halt all new coal, oil and gas exploration. The move triggered backlash from industry and political opponents – with former president Iván Duque calling the decision “political and economic suicide”. The South American country depends on fossil fuels for about 10% of fiscal revenues and 4% of GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

    Organisers of the Santa Marta conference said they expect between 40 and 80 high-level representatives from governments, both at national and subnational levels. Colombian president Gustavo Petro is expected to participate, and invitations have been extended to California governor Gavin Newsom and Dutch prime minister Rob Jetten.

    Deep divisions persist as plastics treaty talks restart at informal meeting

    No turning back

    The conference comes amid renewed volatility in global energy markets. As the US and Israel’s war in Iran disrupts oil and gas supplies and threatens to cause severe global economic damage, analysts say governments should seek to reduce their dependency on fossil fuels through investments in renewables and energy efficiency.

    The upcoming Santa Marta conference should build momentum to plan that transition away from fossil fuels and signal that “there is no turning back”, said Peter Newell, professor of international relations at the University of Sussex and one of the main proponents of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.

    “Its outcomes, which might include a declaration on key principles and next steps (for the fossil fuel transition), should give renewed vigour to efforts within the UN climate negotiations to drive the agenda forward,” Newell said.

    Because major fossil fuel producers have effectively “vetoed” discussions on a fossil fuel phase-out at COPs, he added, willing countries must move forward independently with initiatives like the Santa Marta conference.

    Andreas Sieber, head of political strategy at the NGO 350.org, agreed that the push away from fossil fuels is “both necessary and economically inevitable”, adding that a conference on phasing out fossil fuels would have been “unthinkable just five years ago”.

    US set to exit UN climate convention in February 2027

    Countries moving forward

    COP30 host Brazil has taken the lead in developing its own national roadmap away from fossil fuels, which President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva requested his government to draft late last year. The roadmap is expected to be formally developed this year.

    The plan – expected to include a dedicated energy transition fund – was initially due in February but has not yet been made public as ministers continue technical discussions.

    In Europe, governments have also stepped up efforts to curb fossil fuel use following the energy shocks triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East.

    Leo Roberts, a fossil fuel transition analyst at the climate think tank E3G, said the recent surge in gas prices linked to the Iran conflict reinforces the case for accelerating the transition to boost energy security and protect people from price shocks.

    “Hopefully, Santa Marta is able to really demonstrate that not only is there momentum at the international sphere through the COP30 roadmap process, but there’s huge momentum away from fossil fuels in the real world,” he said.

    The post New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

    New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    The US’s critical minerals club threatens an equitable clean energy transition

    Published

    11 hours ago

    on

    March 9, 2026

    By

    Nick Dearden is the director of Global Justice Now.

    The US push for nations to join a club that would coordinate the trade of critical minerals outside China signals a giant shift in Washington’s vision for how to govern the global economy But it will, unfortunately, also hinder the clean energy transition.

    Critical minerals such as lithium, nickel, copper and rare earths are needed to manufacture clean energy technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines and batteries on which the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy depends.

    But these minerals also have applications for a wide range of advanced technologies, not least military equipment and digital infrastructure. In recent years, AI deployment and the build out of data centres have become the primary political justification for mineral extraction.

    No US official mentioned clean energy technologies as they promoted the new minerals club in Washington last month. Instead, the trading bloc aims to break China’s dominance over mineral supply chains and ensure US access to the resources it needs for digital and military sectors.

    Analysis by Global Justice Now found that almost one in five of the 33 minerals that the UK identified as critical in 2024 are not needed to achieve the International Energy Agency’s decarbonisation pathways. A further 15 play only a very small role and only seven require significant production increases for the clean energy transition.

    Prioritise minerals for the energy transition

    The urgency of addressing climate change means we must prioritise the use of minerals to rapidly and equitably wean the global economy off coal, oil and gas while reducing resource overconsumption in the Global North. The US approach could make this prioritisation a lot harder.

    For Washington, this isn’t about addressing climate change, but America’s ever deepening rivalry with China, a renewable energy superpower. In contrast, Donald Trump has called climate change “a hoax” and overseen unprecedented climate deregulation in favour of fossil fuels.

      The minerals trading bloc risks diverting mineral resources towards carbon-intensive military and technology build-up in the US, which is directly at odds with the need to use these resources to manufacture clean energy technologies.

      What’s more, for the green transition to be just, fair and equitable, resource-rich governments must be able to refine and add value to their resources, creating jobs and economic development in the process. But Trump’s trading bloc is intended to tell “partner” countries what role they should play in the global mineral supply chains to best serve US interests.

      Serving US interests rather than clean energy

      Countries with the smallest and least developed economies stand to lose out.

      More than a dozen countries have signed bilateral deals with the Trump administration. The terms of the deals appear to get better the richer a country is.

      At the poorer end is the deal with DRC – an outright piece of imperialism with one-sided obligations that override the country’s mineral sovereignty by giving the US first dibs on a range of strategic mining sites and the energy needed to power these sites.

      ‘America needs you’: US seeks trade alliance to break China’s critical mineral dominance

      In the middle, Malaysia committed to facilitate American involvement in its mineral sector and refrain from banning or imposing quotas on exports of raw minerals to the US. This risks restricting the development of Malaysia’s refining capacities, making value addition harder.

      At the top end is the UK, which has signed a deal that includes a commitment to streamline mineral permitting, but appears more focused on facilitating financial services to members of the trading bloc.

      Wherever countries sit in the pecking order, the agreements signed with the US limit governments’ strategic sovereignty over their resources and stifle their ability to create a more sustainable economy which meets people’s needs.

      Tools for a way forward

      There is some hope, however. Trump’s mineral trading bloc would operate with profoundly different rules than the neoliberal trade deals, which we have become used to.

      Some of its components – like price floors and state ownership – have not been seen in trade deals for a long time. In the right hands, these tools could help governments plan, coordinate and prioritise a globally just green transition and break away from the ‘market knows best’ logic which has long locked poorer countries into low-value exports of raw materials.

      If governments work together, outside the coercive US trade bloc, to adopt some of these tools and policies, they might be able to draw local benefits from their mineral wealth and build a genuinely fair and equitable trade in transition minerals.

      The post The US’s critical minerals club threatens an equitable clean energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

      The US’s critical minerals club threatens an equitable clean energy transition

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Greenpeace urges governments to defend international law, as evidence suggests breaches by deep sea mining contractors

      Published

      15 hours ago

      on

      March 9, 2026

      By

      SYDNEY/FIJI, Monday 9 March 2026 — As the International Seabed Authority (ISA) opens its 31st Session today, Greenpeace International is calling on member states to take firm and swift action if breaches by subsidiaries and subcontractors of The Metals Company (TMC) are established. Evidence compiled and submitted to the ISA’s Secretary General suggests that violations of exploration contracts may have occurred.

      Louisa Casson, Campaigner, Greenpeace International, said: “In July, governments at the ISA sent a clear message: rogue companies trying to sidestep international law will face consequences. Turning that promise into action at this meeting is far more important than rushing through a Mining Code designed to appease corporate interests rather than protect the common good. As delegations from around the world gather today, they must unite and confront the US and TMC’s neo-colonial resource grab and make clear that deep sea mining is a reckless gamble humanity cannot afford.”

      The ISA launched an inquiry at its last Council meeting in July 2025, in response to TMC USA seeking unilateral deep sea mining licences from the Trump administration. If the US administration unilaterally allows mining of the international seabed, it would be considered in violation of international law.

      Greenpeace International has compiled and submitted evidence to the ISA Secretary-General, Leticia Carvalho, to support the ongoing inquiry into deep sea mining contractors. This evidence shows that those supporting these unprecedented rogue efforts to start deep sea mining unilaterally via President Trump could be in breach of their obligations with the ISA.

      The analysis focuses on TMC’s subsidiaries — Nauru Ocean Resources Inc (NORI) and Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML) — as well as Blue Minerals Jamaica (BMJ), a company linked to Dutch-Swiss offshore engineering firm Allseas, one of TMC’s subcontractors and largest shareholders. The information compiled indicates that their activities may violate core contractual obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). If these breaches are confirmed, NORI and TOML’s exploration contracts, which expire in July 2026 and January 2027 respectively, the ISA should take action, including considering not renewing the contract.

      Letícia Carvalho has recently publicly advocated for governments to finalise a streamlined deep sea mining code this year and has expressed her own concerns with the calls from 40 governments for a moratorium. At a time when rogue actors are attempting to bypass or weaken the international system, establishing rules and regulations that will allow mining to start could mean falling into the trap of international bullies. A Mining Code would legitimise and drive investment into a flagging industry, supporting rogue actor companies like TMC and weakening deterrence against unilateral mining outside the ISA framework.

      Casson added: “Rushing to finalise a Mining Code serves the interests of multinational corporations, not the principles of multilateralism. With what we know now, rules to mine the deep sea cannot coexist with ocean protection. Governments are legally obliged to only authorise deep sea mining if it can demonstrably benefit humanity – and that is non-negotiable. As the long list of scientific, environmental and social concerns with this industry keeps growing, what is needed is a clear political signal that the world will not be intimidated into rushing a mining code by unilateral threats and will instead keep moving towards a moratorium on deep sea mining.” 

      —ENDS—

      Key findings from the full briefing:

      • Following TMC USA’s application to mine the international seabed unilaterally, NORI and TOML have amended their agreements to provide payments to Nauru and Tonga, respectively, if US-authorised commercial mining goes ahead. This sets up their participation in a financial mechanism predicated on mining in contradiction to UNCLOS.
      • NORI and TOML have signed intercompany intellectual property and data-sharing agreements with TMC USA, and the data obtained by NORI and TOML under the ISA exploration contracts has been key to facilitating TMC USA’s application under US national regulations.
      • Just a few individuals hold key decision-making roles across the TMC and all relevant subsidiaries, making claims of independent management ungrounded. NORI, TOML, and TMC USA, while legally distinct, are managed as an integrated corporate group with a single, coordinated strategy under the direct control and strategic direction of TMC.

      Greenpeace urges governments to defend international law, as evidence suggests breaches by deep sea mining contractors

      Continue Reading

      Trending

      Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com