- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Mining companies are repeating past human rights violations and harmful policies to extract the minerals the world needs to build modern technologies and transition to clean energy, Elisa Morgera, UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights, told a London Climate Action Week event.
But it doesn’t have to be that way.
There are growing efforts to ensure that the sector respects human rights and contributes to – rather than undermines – a just and rapid energy transition, experts said at the panel discussion hosted by Climate Home News and the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre this week.
Approaches include urging governments to implement more robust regulations and enforcing them, tracing minerals transparently from the ground to their end product, engaging with local communities while projects are still being designed, and plugging a funding gap for emerging solutions to the mining sector’s sustainability challenges.
In many cases, the extraction of minerals such as cobalt, copper, lithium and nickel – essential for manufacturing batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines to decarbonise economies, among other applications – is leading to deforestation, human rights violations and social conflicts, which risk slowing down the energy transition at a time when the world needs to speed it up.
Does the world need a global treaty on energy transition minerals?
These problems are “not new”, Morgera told the event in London.
“Unfortunately, it’s the same textbook that we’ve seen in logging, in other extractive activities and in many neo-colonial processes,” she said, citing tick-box consultation processes, the absence of accessible information about projects and the promise of benefits to powerful people within communities. As a result, local people are often left divided and deprived of their rights.
“We all need to be fully aware and document everything that we know goes wrong… to not repeat mistakes that are preventable” – and avoid adding to the burden on communities which “in some cases have experienced generations of the same kind of [rights] violations”, she added.
Morgera said that addressing these issues requires states, mining companies, investors and financiers to create meaningful practices of co-development, co-ownership and mutual learning with those on the ground affected by minerals extraction. She called for a “more proactive” approach to helping local communities and Indigenous peoples participate in shaping projects much earlier in the process.
Andi Muttaqien, executive director of Indonesian NGO Satya Bumi, warned there is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to designing community engagement and benefit-sharing mechanisms, but these should be designed on a case-by-case basis.
In some instances, biodiversity-rich and culturally sensitive areas should be protected from mining, he said, citing the case of the small Indonesian island of Kabaena, where large-scale nickel mining has polluted the water and affected the indigenous Bajau People’s traditional way of life.
Better transparency along the supply chain should ensure that electric automakers and consumers can find out where the minerals used in their products are sourced, he added.
Ending poverty and gangs: How Zambia seeks to cash in on the global drive for EVs
Estelle Levin-Nally of the Global Investor Commission on Mining 2030, which seeks to define a vision for a socially and environmentally responsible mining sector by 2030 and the role of finance in realising it, said investors have a key role to play in ensuring due diligence earlier in the planning of a mining project.
That is important because environmental and social impact assessments often fail to put in place robust safeguards in time to prevent harm, she said.
“The key moment is at the point of contracting,” she told the event. “That’s when [investors] can use their leverage [to push] for a higher human rights and environment performance by the miner.”
Investors should also put their money into scaling sustainability solutions along supply chains, such as data management and cleaner mining technologies, where there is a “a big funding gap”, she said.
“I want to see more investors ‘man up’ and go into the hard stuff, be part of that transformation and act as that enabling partner, because we as a society need them to do that,” she added.
Cecilia Mattea, of the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), a voluntary mining standard governed equally by the private sector, local communities, civil society and workers, argued that holding the sector accountable requires stronger government laws and regulations.
She acknowledged that voluntary standards alone “are not enough”. “But if governments are not doing enough… then there is a role for voluntary standards to help drive the change and showcase what’s possible,” she said, adding that a responsible mine currently “doesn’t exist”.
Solar squeeze: US tariffs threaten panel production and jobs in Thailand
IRMA is currently working with more than 100 companies that are willing to have their mining sites undergo third-party assessment against the standard, with most coming forward following pressure from downstream buyers and NGOs, she said.
Phil Bloomer, executive director of the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, agreed that better regulation is needed, as in Canada and New Zealand.
Here, “bad companies change their practice where they face massive legal risks and massive costs in terms of fines” while the level regulatory playing field prevents companies with good practices from “being undercut by polluting and abusive competitors”, he said.
“Rushing… to extract transition minerals without learning the lessons from the past and without addressing the inequality of power and wealth that exists in those businesses will not solve our climate crisis,” he added. “To the contrary, it will slow down the transition and it will backfire upon us. There is a better way – and one that can contribute to the objectives of a just and rapid global energy transition.”
The post Mining for transition minerals can be responsible with joint push, experts say appeared first on Climate Home News.
Mining for transition minerals can be responsible with joint push, experts say
Continue Reading
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.
The text states that other countries – including emerging economies – may “voluntarily assume” these obligations to pay. However, it adds that this list of developed countries “shall” be reviewed periodically and amended “if necessary”.
The list was last amended in 2006.
(See this “jargon buster” which explains the specific meaning and legal weight of various terms and verbs used in UN formal documents.)
Discussions around this fraught subject had reached a dead end at intersessional talks this year, but resurfaced in Yerevan.
The first “non-paper” had four different options for expanding the contributor base. These ranged from using the World Bank’s country income groups “as a proxy” to identify high-income countries, to commissioning a study on the impacts of being included on the list.
By 21 October, the number of options swelled to eight, including two from Saudi Arabia and one from Peru.
Some countries “expressed concern” that certain options were based on a CBD secretariat study on “what constitutes a developed country”, Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported.
By the end of the first week, it was clear that the finance deadlock would have to go into informal ministerial consultations for any consensus to emerge.
At a press conference on 28 October, Christopher O’Sullivan, Ireland’s nature minister and representing the EU delegation, told Carbon Brief:
“Our position isn’t that we want to pull back in terms of contributing…but it’s been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities. We just simply want those new realities reflected. I don’t fully understand why there’s so much opposition to that.”
The EU chose not to comment on which countries it would like to see on that list.
Lim Li Ching from the Third World Network, meanwhile, called the push for others to “assume the obligations” of developed countries “sheer hypocrisy”, adding that any country could make a voluntary contribution. She told Carbon Brief:
“At a forum like the CBD, this linking of income status with finance does not take into account where historical and current responsibilities lie. If you want to generate more funding for biodiversity, let’s look at sovereign debt burdens and rules, which are inequitable for developing countries. But if you can fund wars, and provide resources for your defence industry, then you know where the priorities are.”
On 29 October – at a plenary meant to adopt final texts for the most contentious subjects – Norway’s Gaute Hanssen announced that resource-mobilisation discussions would go into a smaller “friends of the chair” meeting.
Facilitated by Carolina Caceres from Canada and Imèn Meliane from Tunisia, the meeting would discuss the most contentious elements of a draft decision that had swelled to 112 brackets, denoting areas of disagreement on specific details in the text.
While the meeting was open to all, countries that were called to be present included Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, the EU, Fiji, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the UK.
At the same time, a “non-paper” text by finance and environment ministers laid out countries’ red lines and compromises.
At the end of COP17, countries welcomed a final compromise text, with Kenya thanking the “strong women” co-chairs who strove to strike a “delicate” balance.
China, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Fiji cautioned against any further interventions, with Brazil warning: “If we open this text, we will never close it again.”
While the final decision “recognises” that “contributions from more parties would improve the mobilisation” of biodiversity finance, it steered away from issuing criteria to expand the list of donor countries.
The text makes it clear that no additions to the list would be made without inviting and confidentially consulting with interested countries, to secure their explicit consent.
Instead, the CBD secretariat “invites” countries keen to be on the list and “assume the obligations” of developed countries to “signal interest” before COP18 and at every alternate COP thereafter.
At the same time, developing countries can contribute to meeting the GBF and biodiversity convention’s goals on a “voluntary basis”, with contributions not implying inclusion on the list.
A negotiator for China told Carbon Brief at the closing plenary:
“We welcome this balanced document. It was a very long discussion that has gone [on] since [2022 nature talks in] Nairobi. But actually this time, there were a lot of sensitive issues, [there were] a lot of critical things we didn’t open in the contact groups; it mainly went to the high-level discussion.”
The decision also establishes a financial mechanism for nature funding after 2030 under the governance of the COP, a key ask from developing countries.
However, it defers decisions on what form this mechanism would take – whether this would be a new fund or based on existing arrangements – until COP18.
Oscar Soria at the Common Initiative told Carbon Brief that the decision on the financial mechanism leaves things “very open”, with “no movement” towards a new fund or money and no upgrades to existing funding arrangements.
The text acknowledges the links between debt and biodiversity eight times, mentioning how debt-related instruments can be included in biodiversity plans, but does not go further.
“It is almost as if the debt studies they called for at COP16 didn’t happen,” said Soria, who had earlier flagged serious methodological issues with the first-ever COP-commissioned report on debt and biodiversity.
Global review
In Yerevan, countries agreed on the first stocktake of progress towards the 2030 nature targets – known as the “global review”.
The review was one of the keenly anticipated outcomes from COP17 and was seen as less controversial than some of the other major negotiation strands.
It was swiftly signed off by countries at the start of the final COP17 plenary, with just one last-minute addition.
The concept of carrying out a global review on “collective progress” was set out in the GBF and its underlying documents.
The details of how this review would be carried out were supposed to be agreed at COP16, but it was not discussed before the plenary in Cali was suspended for loss of “quorum”. It was instead adopted at the resumed COP16 negotiations in Rome in February 2025.
The global review was based largely on the findings of the global report and other information provided by countries.
The final text “welcomes” and also “notes with deep concern” the findings of the global report. It then homes in on various ways countries can increase their biodiversity action to get on track to meet the targets.
As of 19 October, when COP17 officially began, the non-paper contained 152 brackets, which indicate areas of disagreement in UN texts.
Smaller “contact group” discussions took place to try and reduce the number of brackets throughout the first week. This group was co-chaired by