Connect with us

Published

on

As chair of the Group of 20 (G20) nations this year, South Africa wants to secure agreement for more local processing of the metals and minerals critical to the clean energy transition, with many mined in large quantities in the Global South – but it will first need to win support from dominant player China.

According to the G20 website, South Africa plans to work with other governments in the international economic forum “to ensure that the countries and local communities endowed with these resources are the ones to benefit the most” – especially as mineral extraction and refining accelerates to supply growing electrification and renewable power production worldwide.

Q&A: What you need to know about critical minerals

At the World Economic Forum in Davos in January, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa said that countries rich in these minerals – which include lithium, cobalt, copper and nickel – should be the ones to gain most from their exploitation.

“Another of South Africa’s priorities for its G20 presidency is to harness critical minerals for inclusive growth and development,” Ramaphosa said, calling for a G20 framework on green industrialisation and investment aimed at delivering a grand bargain “that promotes value addition to critical minerals particularly close to the source of extraction”.

This, according to Ramaphosa, will result in “an additive rather than an extractive relationship” and reverse the historical trend by which resource-rich countries, many of them in Africa, lose out “because the benefit flows out of their own countries to other locals in the world”.

Valentine’s Day a costlier affair as rising heat hits West Africa cocoa production

Interest in processing minerals close to their source – known as “beneficiation” – has increased in recent years amid rising demand for the metals and minerals that are essential to produce clean technologies such as renewable energy infrastructure, electric vehicles and batteries.

Last December, during former US leader Joe Biden’s first and only visit to Africa, President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) said, “it is imperative that the wealth contained in our [Africa’s] ground contribute directly to the well-being of our peoples”.

This view is in line with recent efforts by some developing countries – including Indonesia, Nigeria, Zimbabwe and Namibia – to ban or curb exports of these raw materials and build processing and manufacturing facilities as a way to grow their economies and develop sustainably.

Why is China’s co-operation essential?

During India’s G20 presidency in 2023, its officials pushed for the group to develop a shared vision on critical minerals. India’s renewable energy secretary Bhupinder Singh Bhalla spoke of the need “for a cost-effective and risk-proof scale-up of clean energy through diversified supply chains and distributive expansion of [the] manufacturing base”.

But the plan fell through after it was opposed by China, meaning that the aim to have “critical minerals and materials beneficiated at source” received only a brief mention in the final G20 declaration that year.

China dominates the global critical minerals supply chain. The Asian powerhouse refines 68% of nickel globally, 40% of copper, 59% of lithium, and 73% of cobalt, according to research by the Brookings Institution and Results for Development. Another report from Southern Transitions shows that China – with the largest global manufacturing capacity for key renewable energy technologies – was the destination for more than half of Africa’s critical mineral ore exports in 2023.

South Africa's G20 push for local mineral processing faces barriers

That is a global advantage China will not easily concede, said Olimpia Pilch, chief strategy officer at The Critical Minerals Africa Group (CMAG). “It is not in China’s interest” for other developing countries to gain more value from critical mineral refining, as this would “threaten China’s leverage” with rival super powers, she said.

What’s more, breaking into the complex space of making products from critical minerals will be “very difficult”, she added, as China is increasingly banning exports of processing equipment and closely guarding its intellectual property and operational know-how.

Africa’s lack of reliable energy supplies and infrastructure

China is not the only obstacle to boosting beneficiation across the Global South. Pilch said many countries that have deposits of critical minerals, including in Africa, lack “almost all of the key ingredients to enable profitable processing and refining”.

Barriers include limited supplies of cheap and reliable energy to convert ore into usable materials and metals; inadequate transport infrastructure; insufficient domestic consumer demand to spur manufacturing; and constrained access to cheap finance due to the high investment risk associated with many African nations.

Thando Lukuko, Climate Action Network’s director for South Africa, said South Africa would struggle to advance its G20 beneficiation plan because resource-rich poorer countries generate a large share of their income from mineral exports and lack the infrastructure needed to process raw materials. “Where’s the money going to come from for that?” he asked.

The rules of the global economic game work against those countries, preventing them from moving away from their status as simple raw material exporters, according to Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition at Climate Action Network International.

DRC’s huge Green Corridor project lacks buy-in from forest communities

For example, the World Trade Organisation generally considers domestic content requirements – which mandate companies to purchase or use a certain percentage of locally produced goods – “as a violation of free trade principles and [they] are therefore prohibited”.

Another problem is clauses embedded in bilateral trade agreements that can prevent countries from introducing policies that retroactively ask foreign investors to add value to the minerals they are extracting, Rosemberg noted, calling for more “openness” from developed countries on value addition.

She welcomed South Africa’s willingness to take on the topic in the G20 negotiations, adding that it could create more awareness on how these barriers intersect with prosperity in the Global South.

Can South Africa seal a G20 deal on critical minerals?

In Davos, Ramaphosa said there is a need to reform the WTO and global financial institutions to be more representative and responsive to citizens’ needs. He promised that South Africa “will use this G20 to champion the use of critical minerals through a programme of green industrialisation and as an engine for growth and development in Africa, and the rest of the Global South”.

Mahendra Shunmoogam, South Africa’s director of foreign trade policy, told Climate Home that a key focus of the G20 this year will be to work out how to “bring about better outcomes for global trade” and make it more inclusive.

He said progress is being made, adding that South Africa has the full backing of the G77+China group of developing countries, with all members of the bloc agreeing to push for beneficiation of critical minerals at source during the 2024 Third South Summit.

A strong carbon tax on shipping can give hope to climate-vulnerable communities

The summit’s outcome document references it only briefly, however, calling “for a coherent set of policy actions at the national, regional and international levels to support the need for developing countries rich in critical minerals to add value to their supply chains as a way of contributing to their economic structural transformation, creating decent employment, increasing export revenues, and participating in the process of economic development”.

Shunmoogam, who is part of the G20 trade and investment working group, said so far there have been no objections to talks on beneficiation from member countries – which are still at an early stage – and he therefore expects them to co-operate on securing a positive result.

The text of a framework on green industralisation that will support the creation of value chains in developing countries will be negotiated this year during South Africa’s presidency, he added.

He suggested that resource-rich countries, such as those in Africa, should develop a regional approach – for example, minerals mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo could be refined in Botswana and assembled elsewhere on the continent. “We do want the minerals from the Global South to add value in the Global South,” he emphasised.

Rosemberg said that South Africa, as G20 president, will need to work with recommendations outlined in a recent report from the UN Secretary-General’s panel of experts on value addition. It states that beneficiation of minerals can spur industrialisation and economic development, therefore “all countries, in particular developing countries, should have an equitable opportunity to harness technological innovation, participate in global mineral value chains and to benefit from these”.

Shunmoogam noted that there are different resolutions by a range of multilateral organisations supporting the processing of minerals at their source, and South Africa aims to collate these as a basis for further discussion at the G20.

Pilch of the CMAG said, however, that for beneficiation to be achieved in Africa and other mineral-rich parts of the developing world, “collective action would need to be taken by G20 to tackle China’s monopoly and invest in growth to boost demand outside of China”.

The post South Africa’s G20 push for local processing of transition minerals faces barriers appeared first on Climate Home News.

South Africa’s G20 push for local processing of transition minerals faces barriers

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

Published

on

Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.

After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.

It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.

“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.

    In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.

    Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.

    By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.

    Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions

    The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.

    After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.

    Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

    Greenpeace campaigner Raoul Monsembula in the peatland forest around Mbandaka, Democratic Republic of Congo, on September 15, 2017 (Daniel Beltra/Greenpeace)

    Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.

    “Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.

    “Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.

    Paris Agreement requirement

    The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.

    The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.

    Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.

    Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

      The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.

      Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.

      “In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.

      The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’

      Published

      on

      Article Contents