The backers of a rare earths mining project in the arid plains of western South Africa say they have the answer to challenging China’s dominance in global supply chains – a by-product that is also crucial to the clean energy transition.
Producing rare earths used to make permanent magnets for wind turbines and electric vehicles (EVs) can be complex and is often unviable due to the costs, helping to explain the European Union’s decision to put the Zandkopsdrift project on its list of “strategic” mining ventures to reduce its dependence on China.
“We’re expected to be … the lowest-cost producer of magnet rare earths outside China,” Philip Kenny, chair of project owner Frontier Rare Earths, said in a media statement in February.
Zandkopsdrift aims to produce 4,000 metric tons of magnet rare earths per year by 2030 – equal to 17% of the EU’s projected needs. Last month, the miner signed an agreement with French company Carester SAS, which will separate and process the mine’s rare earths at a large-scale facility being built in France.
Central to the company’s business plan for Zandkopsdrift’s rare earths output is a by-product – battery-grade manganese, which the project aims to produce more cheaply than anywhere else in the world.
-
Africa’s mineral wealth can make it an architect of a more just energy transition
African leaders and policymakers must ensure that policies to add value to the continent’s critical minerals bring jobs and dignity to its young people -
Africa urged to unite on minerals as US strikes bilateral deals
In the race for minerals critical for clean energy technologies, experts at the World Economic Forum said African nations should coordinate negotiations with trade partners -
West Africa’s first lithium mine awaits go-ahead as Ghana seeks better deal
Ghana wants to benefit from the scramble for lithium but its reliance on mining firms for revenue and expertise weakens its ability to negotiate preferential terms, experts say
Manganese is increasingly used in the cathodes of lithium-ion EV batteries. Manganese-rich lithium-ion batteries significantly reduce the need for other minerals such as nickel and cobalt, which have been associated with social and environmental impacts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia. However, nearly all of the manganese sulphate used in batteries is currently produced by China.
“We will be the lowest (battery-grade manganese) cost producer in the world. We will have a production cost approximately 20% of China’s,” James Kenny, the company’s CEO, told an EU minerals conference in Brussels last year.
‘Untested’ processing route
While the model is promising, combining rare earth extraction with battery-grade manganese production at a commercial scale is an untested processing route, said Gaylor Montmasson-Clair, an energy consultant and analyst based in Pretoria.
“The production costs claimed are certainly eye-catching and, if verified, would be disruptive,” said Montmasson-Clair, who specialises in issues related to the transition to a green economy.
“However, there is a significant gap between prefeasibility projections and operational reality,” he said, noting that commercial production of rare earths is particularly sensitive to rates of mineral extraction and the costs of chemicals involved in the process.
The project – which will produce the rare earth compounds neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium oxide – remains at the feasibility stage, with a Definitive Feasibility Study due for completion in mid-2027.
“We won’t know the true cost curve until the definitive feasibility study is complete and, ultimately, until the plant is running,” Montmasson-Clair added.
Frontier Rare Earths did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
Troubled mining legacy
The project fits in with South Africa’s aim to become a key supplier of critical minerals as countries scramble to secure up supplies of rare earths – a group of 17 elements that are needed to produce a diverse range of goods, including technologies for the clean energy transition.
President Cyril Ramaphosa signed a partnership on critical minerals with the EU in November, and the Industrial Development Corp (IDC), a state development finance institution, has invested $20 million in Zandkopsdrift.
Like other countries with a long and troubled mining legacy, South Africa wants to ensure that the mistakes of past mining booms are not repeated.
That means limiting the damage and disruption to the surrounding environment and communities, creating local jobs and adding value to raw materials exports by processing minerals domestically.
A commitment to meeting higher standards
Frontier Rare Earths has committed to an assessment by the US-based Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), a voluntary global certification system for socially and environmentally responsible mining that gives miners an opportunity to show they are going beyond compliance.
“The intention is for the IRMA Standard to be useful early in the planning and development process so that future mines are developed in ways that reduce harm from the start,” Aimee Boulanger, IRMA’s executive director, told Climate Home News.
“The full audit report is made public, including the score for each requirement and the auditors’ notes on what evidence they found,” Boulanger said.
Steps pledged by the company for Zandkopsdrift include water-recycling systems to minimise consumption in the semi-arid Namaqualand region where it lies, local procurement targets and tailings storage facilities that are designed to prevent acidic mine drainage.
Additionally, under South Africa’s flagship Black economic empowerment programme, local communities will also hold a 26% stake in the project.
-
Battery passport plan aims to clean up the industry powering clean energy
Some of the world’s largest battery makers are piloting a scheme led by the Global Battery Alliance to reward manufacturers that meet social and environmental standards -
Cobalt and nickel-free electric car batteries boom in “good news” for rainforests
Lithium iron phosphate batteries do not contain cobalt and nickel, which are mostly found in rainforest nations like the DR Congo and Indonesia -
Argentina’s pioneering glacier law on the line as Milei bets on copper rush
President Javier Milei wants Congress to relax groundbreaking glacier protection legislation to boost mining, but opponents say the environmental risks are too great
And as a means to add value and create extra jobs, the IDC holds an option to buy up to 10% of Zandkopsdrift’s production at prevailing market prices, subject to it being used in further downstream processing in South Africa.
“That clause is crucial,” said Montmasson-Clair. “It suggests Pretoria sees value beyond simply digging and exporting. The question is whether South Africa has the industrial capacity to absorb that material, or whether this will catalyse new local beneficiation industries.”
“Who actually benefits?”
Despite the promises of economic benefits, some local people in Namaqualand are wary about the prospect of new mining projects in the semi-desert region, formerly a major diamond-producing area.
Water shortages are a constant worry here, especially among small-scale cattle farmers, and memories of past environmental abuses by mining companies linger.
“We have seen these promises before,” said Sarah Baartman, chair of the Namaqualand Communities Mining Forum, a group formed to demand greater control over mining activities on their land due to concerns over environmental degradation and a lack of economic benefits and public consultation.
“The question is always: who actually benefits? Every mining company says they will be different. Then the water tables drop, dust coats our livestock, and when the mine closes, we are left with contaminated land.”
The post South African rare earths project aims to rival Chinese with low-cost model appeared first on Climate Home News.
South African rare earths project aims to rival Chinese with low-cost model
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital,