Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

Two days after the COP28 climate summit concluded on 13 December, Carbon Brief convened its team of specialist journalists to discuss the key outcomes of the two-week event in Dubai.

More than 1,300 people joined the webinar to hear about how issues such as the global stocktake, finance and adaptation featured at the talks, as well as how major nations such as China, India and the US approached the negotiations.

Carbon Brief published its detailed summary of the key outcomes hours after COP28 ended, outlining everything that happened both inside and outside the negotiating rooms.

A second in-depth piece zooming in on the outcomes for food, forests, land and nature at COP28 was published later in the week.

Eight Carbon Brief journalists and editors were on the ground throughout the summit and they all featured in the webinar.

A recording of the webinar (below) is now available to watch on YouTube.

The webinar was moderated by Carbon Brief’s editor and director, Leo Hickman, and featured the following Carbon Brief journalists:

Dr Simon Evans explained the “global stocktake” and, in particular, what it said about fossil fuels.

Daisy Dunne discussed the controversies around COP28 being held in a petrostate and the presidency being held by Sultan Al Jaber, the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

Josh Gabbatiss spoke about the role of finance at this year’s COP – including the launch of the loss-and-damage fund. He also detailed the “global goal on adaptation”, which was given the green light in Dubai.

Molly Lempriere discussed a pledge by 130 countries to triple renewables by 2030. She also delved into the mitigation work programme.

Anika Patel followed China’s role in Dubai and analysed the country’s priorities at COP28 talks.

Aruna Chandrasekhar detailed India’s approach at COP28, looking ahead to the role the country will play at COP29 in Azerbaijan next year.

Orla Dwyer discussed the dynamics around civil society and activists in Dubai where protests are banned.

Dr Giuliana Viglione talked about how food was brought to the table in Dubai in a more significant way than at previous COPs.

Q&A

The Carbon Brief team also fielded questions from the audience and, where possible, answered them in writing within the webinar’s Q&A panel.

Below is an unedited copy of those questions and answers. The questioners’ names have been initialised, as have those of the Carbon Brief journalists:

PG: Isn’t what was agreed massively short of what is needed? The Saudi’s agreed to the wording because it allowed them to continue on a ‘business as usual’ basis, didn’t they?

SE: As we wrote in our summary, the wording on fossil fuels was probably as ambitious as it could have been – barring significant movement on new finance. More importantly, only countries themselves can implement action on the ground – the COP can’t do that. So the key test comes when countries submit their next climate pledges, by the end of 2025.

ML: Do the petrostates condemn all future COPs to achieving no more than incremental progress?

SE: I would say it’s important to note that there are 195 parties at the COP, each with their own priorities, red lines and compromises to make. So while individual countries or groups can veto decisions, there is rarely a single villain, due to the wide range of decisions being taken.

CBM: Could a COP ever be in a low lying island? Seychelles?

SE: The host rotates through five world regions. Fiji held the presidency in 2017 at COP23, but the summit was held in Bonn, Germany.

ME: With FT reporting ‘Big oil welcomes COP28 call to move away from fossil fuels in ‘orderly’ way’ – should cutting FF subsidies be the focus for the next COP?

SE: The stocktake does call on countries to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that do not support energy poverty “as soon as possible”, and this topic has come up repeatedly eg it was in the COP26 outcome, but I’m sure the focus on subsidies will continue – and for good reason.

EW: Like others, I am a bit surprised that people are pretending to be impressed by a statement of the obvious. With a different chair do you think we could have got something stronger.

SE: The presidency does play a big role at the COP but ultimately it’s a party-led process and if enough countries say they want something on the agenda, it’s hard for the presidency to stop that happening. (Last year at COP27 was a big different because attempts to address fossil fuels were in the “cover text”, which isn’t formally on the agenda and so the presidency has a bigger say on what’s in it)

MA: How close or how far will this deal land us in 1,5C?

SE: “IEA, ETC and CAT (sorry for acroynms) released analysis of COP28 pledges during the summit, see our summary. The tripling renewables and doubling efficiency one is the most significant, see this analysis we published before the COP to see why.

I think the CAT analysis said COP28 pledges closed around 1/3 of the gap to 1.5C, but it’s hard to quantify the “transitioning away from FF” part until we see the next country pledges.

EG: Is it not much better to focus on national government action and largely ignore the COP process which has never created a binding agreement at the level needed to ensure survival. At every COP we slip backwards again. The annual COP jamboree also distracts attention from the desperately urgent action we need on a national basis immediately. Ed Gemmell, Leader, the Climate Party in UK

AC: The Paris Agreement is in fact ALL about national government action, which is why they’re called NDCs or nationally determined contributions. After 2020, countries were supposed to start implementing their national pledges and will have to set new ones for 2025. COPs are where countries come together to set targets, review pledges and any binding commitments (including on finance), reflect on collective progress or the lack of it, and share knowledge and support and experiences. If you separate “jamboreee” from the actual negotiations, it is the one space, where once-a-year, ALL countries have a seat at the table to discuss climate actions and decisions are arrived at multilaterally.

TY: Did the global stocktake reveal which countries are particularly behind and what progress has been made in Europe? The implementation of the Global Stocktake has been reported by a lot of news papers, but I don’t think much detail has been reported.

SE: The stocktake was not really focused on national-level progress (or lack thereof) because countries didn’t want to be put in the spotlight / have their homework marked.

TM: Did the UK make any useful or significant contribution to COP28?

SE: The UK’s lead negotiator Alison Campbell was the co-chair of the stocktake negotiations, so she played a big role in the outcome (though the presidency took over the task into week two)

BM: As the phrase on transitioning away from foossil fuels has an extension, saying “so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science;” doesn’t that make this statement more meaningful? Net zero CO2 is needed for limiting warming to 1,5 C, so the whole sentence actually says that the transition away of fossil fuel should be realised by 2050, which is exactly what is needed. I know the “call upon Parties” context makes this whole statement rather weak, but nevertheless

SE: Thanks for the question Bert, yes you are correct, but nevertheless the key test will come with next country pledges.

EW: One of the main reactions I am getting from lay-friends is that the jamboree of thousands of people using carbon to fly to the COP is a terrible look. Is there any prospect of the COP being reformed so that it still achieves its goals but with 10-100 times fewer participants?

SE: This is definitely a very live question about how the COP is run. However, it’s worth emphasising that the amount of carbon associated with flights to the summit is not even a rounding error compared with annual global emissions (I think I worked it out as thousandths of a percent). Given the role of Paris and COPs generally in helping bend the curve on emissions, even small impacts on future warming would easily make all those flights worth it.

SC: Having documentation on exactly which countries were initially willing to sign up for “fossil fuel phase out” would be politically useful. Is that information available somewhere?

SE: “Yes, check out these pieces…

ML: What is the US rationale for its low $ commitment to the L&D fund relative to rich peers? Are they committing more elsewhere as an alternative for example?

SE: Republicans control the House, which holds the purse strings…

IR: do you think the outcomes would have been different if the president had not been distracted by having to defend himself agnst allegations of side deals etc? it did look as if he was getting somewhere at first.

SE: I would say the initial progress early on opened out space for the fight on fossil fuels. There are always big ups and downs in terms of progress at the COP so I wouldn’t read too much into this specific presidency on that.

NG: Why are developing countries not content with the L&D fund being held at the World Bank, and why would they prefer the UN?

SE: check out our Q&A here: Q&A: The fight over the ‘loss-and-damage fund’ for climate change

CP: John Kerry, the US climate envoy, is 80 and his Chinese counterpart, Xie Zhenhua, will be retiring next year. Who would take their place when these two people are no longer around and what could this mean for US-Chinese climate relations movng forward?

SE: I don’t think we know wrt Kerry but Liu Zhenmin is due to replace Xie Zhenhua, per our summary…COP28: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Dubai

FM: Did (any) actions/speeches/etc. by the UK COP delegates give us any new insight as to the future approach of the UK to domestic climate action?

SE: I am not we gained any particular insights into the current government’s plans on climate, to be honest.

RE: If you have time, would you please talk about the issues blocking decisions related to the market mechanisms (A6.2 and 6.4)? Thank you.

SE: Thanks Ricardo, we addressed this briefly in our summary. For 6.2 it’s about whether to have process or control over how countries trade carbon with each other. The US was pushing for few rules while the EU, AILAC and others wanted the opposite. Some parties say attempting to put limits on the process goes against the mandate in this area. Big divides. Hard to see a way forward. On 6.4, the key stumbling block was on rules around carbon removals. I would expect those to be sorted out at COP29. Here’s a direct link to the relevant bit of our summary: COP28: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Dubai – Article 6

AL: How will the doubling of energy efficiency be measured?

SE: The IEA already tracks the rate of improvement of efficiency, so I assume it’d be similar. I believe it’s an energy intensity measure. Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5C

CV: Do you actually feel we see a reduction in burning of fossil fuels as a direct outcome from this COP?

SE: It’s hard to judge until we see the next round of climate pledges, but narratives definitely matter because investors, markets, etc are people too and so they are influenced by what other people are saying.

CM: Whicvh are the ‘pressure points’ that climate justice action and campaign groups should be aiming at now post COP 28?

SE: The next round of NDCs (national climate pledges) due by end of 2025 are key. So – every natoinal govt is a pressure point.

VP: Is it so automatic that “triplicating renewables means move away from fossil fuels”? I am afraid that maybe fossil fuels will continue to be used as usual, while triplicating renewables (that today are not very important globally) will allow to continue being a highly energy consuming civilization worldwide. Can you comment on this?

SE: The IEA sees tripling renewables as a key lever. While you are correct that one does not automatically follow the other, we’d not be likely to see cuts in fossil fuel use unless alternative energy sources rapidly scale up. Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5C

JR: Doesn’t the tripling of world nuclear capacity fit in this section, not only RE

SE: We did cover this pledge, but it was explicitly aspirational and only signed up to by a small number of countries

JK: How important are the ‘side-deals’ at COP? Often multi-lateral deals are made on specific issues between groups of nations, like sustainable agricultural practices, water table monitoring frameworks, etc?

SE: The key issue with the side deals is the lack of accountability. Obv even national pledges lack binding accountability, but they are at least tied to some sort of process and monitoring. So – that’s why the next national pledges due in 2025 are key. They’re supposed to be informed by the stocktake and they have to explain how they are informed by it.

PN: How “visible” were the lobbyists from the oil companies at COP28? Was their presence/influence rather obvious or did they keep more in the back/quiet?

SE: I doubt they interacted directly with the negotiations/negotiators, which take place in their own specific bubble at the COP. But other attendees do influence the general vibes / what people are talking about.

SO: Good afternoon, thanks for organizing this webinar. Just hearing Leo in the introduction highlight that this was the first time that ‘fossil fuels’ were mentioned in a COP outcome, and we’ve heard others highlighting this too over the last 2 days. Actually looking through last year’s Sharm el-Sheikh COP27 cover decision (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cop27_auv_2_cover%20decision.pdf) it looks like ‘fossil fuels’ were mentioned (section IV. Mitigation, para 13) “Calls upon Parties … to phase-out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies…” This year the Dubai’s COP28 Global Stocktake Outcome (https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2023_L17_adv.pdf) mentions (para 28 (h)) “Further recognizes the need … phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies…” So given this sounds quite similar just interested in your views in how far we can call the mentioning of fossil fuels new. Thanks!

SE: The difference / significance is about this year’s decision targeting fossil fuels themselves, as a group collectively, as being a problem, which has never happened before.

JC: what is the sense of the role of the market in climate action? Since quality is at stake and market results have failed to deliver integrity, what is the result in the absence of a meaningful decision on Article 6?

SE: Hi Jacobo, this is an interesting tension…Article 6.4 is supposed to drive high quality markets but the longer it takes to get started, the more other market initiaves continue to grow in prominence. So far, I think there is more heat than light around voluntary carbon markets and I would be surprised to see that change dramatically even once ARticle 6.4 starts working.

EG: Sorry they did not agree to ‘double energy efficiency’. In fact the exact words are “doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030” – they only agreed to double the RATE of annual IMPROVEMENTS to energy efficiency. If the average annual rate of “improvement” is 1% currently then this should be 2% by 2030 – overall energy efficiency is not being doubled. Or have I missed something?

SE: Hi Ed, yes it’s the rate of improvement, hopefully that is clear in all our coverage – sorry if that wasn’t clear in our brief spoken summaries just now. See eg: Q&A: Why deals at COP28 to ‘triple renewables’ and ‘double efficiency’ are crucial for 1.5

BW: Is there any chance for the COPs to adopt a majority (say at least 75%) instead of unanimous vote rule? Right now, one country is enough to block progress for everybody else and it would be good if there’d be a way around that.

SE: Hopefully covered in my answer just now…short answer, seems unlikely!

DO: In what ways (if any) is the phrase “transitioning away” different from “phasing-down”?

SE: I mean ultlimately it’s all wordsmithing, the key point is does it take us in the direction we need to go – see the chart in this piece: Q&A: Why defining the ‘phaseout’ of ‘unabated’ fossil fuels is so important at COP28

SS: Folks, please keep in mind, that this all is a volunatary commitment. No independent monitoring, verification. No 2030 goal. No money for enhanded adaptation and mitigation for poorer countries, bread crumps for L&D. And last but not least, based on US, Japan and others pressure, the baseyear for tripling/doubling renewables capacity and energy efficiency got lost – so allowing for significant gaming. I couled go on. So, what is the hype on this “monumental” outcome?

SE: Hi Stephan, you’re not wrong. To be fair, I don’t think we called it monumental, but despite all the shortcomings, it’s hard not to see it as historic to finally name the elephant in the room (fossil fuels), no matter how mealy-mouthed the language was.

GS: A question to Anika: Anika, thanks! You mentioned that while China didn’t contribute to L&D this year, China is contributing to adaptation through other channels. Could you talk more about the nature of those channels (for example: private vs public?, how can we know the investments are adaptation-related, where can we find the data/evidence)

AP: Thanks for the question Georgia! The data is all quite disparate and it’s quite complicated for a chat box, but I’d point you to this article we published recently on this topic: Guest post: Why some ‘developing’ countries are already among largest climate-finance contributors

HBP: ‘@orla and others – How are you tracking the announcements/commitments made for food and agriculture? What can civil society and journalists do to better verify claims are new/have real climate impact and not greenwashing?

OD: Hi Hope, you can find a lot of these announcements and detail on whether they are new or updated in our key outcomes piece published this afternoon… COP28: Key outcomes for food, forests, land and nature at the UN climate talks in Dubai

KH: Were there any new commitments made on implementation of the Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) framework?

OD: Hi Kate, we have a section on what happened with ACE at this year’s COP in our main key outcomes piece – COP28: Key outcomes agreed at the UN climate talks in Dubai

KM: Do we think that China will eventually pay into the L&D fund?

AP: It’s not impossible, but I think there are a lot of outstanding issues that would first need to be changed (e.g. the World Bank’s oversight, developed countries meeting their existing obligations, ramping down trade tensions with the West) before China would be comfortable joining. China has other platforms (like the south-south cooperation fund, the Africa Climate Summit, etc) that it would be happier using to achieve the same thing.

COP28 DeBriefed 15 December: Carbon Brief’s key takeaways; Food, forests and nature; Free webinar today

DeBriefed

|

15.12.23

Guest post: What would an ambitious ‘global goal on adaptation’ look like at COP28?

Guest posts

|

11.12.23

Guest post: Why some ‘developing’ countries are already among largest climate-finance contributors

Guest posts

|

11.12.23

COP28 DeBriefed 8 December: The fight over fossil fuels; Al Jaber defends ‘respect’ for science; Has COP ever finished on time?

DeBriefed

|

08.12.23

The post Webinar: Carbon Brief journalists discuss COP28’s key outcomes  appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Webinar: Carbon Brief journalists discuss COP28’s key outcomes 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Climate Change

Landmark deal to share Chile’s lithium windfall fractures Indigenous communities

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 18, 2026

By

Rudecindo Espíndola’s family has been growing corn, figs and other crops for generations in the Soncor Valley in northern Chile, an oasis of green orchards in one of the driest places on Earth – the Atacama desert.

Perched nearly 2,500 metres above sea level, his village, Toconao, means “lost corner” in the Kunza language of the Indigenous people who have lived and farmed the land in this remote spot for millennia.

“Our deep connection to this place is based on what we have inherited from our ancestors: our culture, our language,” said Espíndola, a member of a local research team that found evidence that people have inhabited the desert for more than 12,000 years.

This distant outpost is at the heart of the global rush for lithium, a silvery-white metal used to make batteries for electric vehicles (EV) and renewable energy storage that are vital to the world’s clean energy transition. The Atacama salt flat is home to about 25% of the world’s known lithium reserves, turning Chile into the world’s second-largest lithium producer after Australia.

For decades, the Atacama’s Indigenous Lickanantay people have protested against the expansion of the lithium industry, warning that the large evaporation ponds used to extract lithium from the brine beneath the salt flats are depleting scarce and sacred water supplies and destroying fragile desert ecosystems.

Espíndola joined the protests, fearing that competition for water could pose an existential threat to his community.

But last year, he was among dozens of Indigenous representatives who sat across the table from executives representing two Chilean mining giants to hammer out a governance model that gives Indigenous communities living close to lithium sites a bigger say over operations, and a greater share of the economic benefits.

A man wearing a black T-shirt and a hat stands in front of a tree
Rudecindo Espíndola stands in a green oasis near the village of Toconao in the Atacama desert (Photo: Francisco Parra)

A pioneering deal

The agreement is part of a landmark deal between state-owned copper miner Codelco and lithium producer the Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile (SQM) to extract lithium from the salt flats until 2060 through a joint venture called NovaAndino Litio.

The governance model that promises people living in Toconao and other villages around the salt flats millions of dollars in benefits and greater environmental oversight is the first of its kind in mineral-rich Chile, and has been hailed by industry experts as the start of a potential model for more responsible mining for energy transition metals.

NovaAndino told Climate Home News the negotiations with local communities represented an “unprecedented process that has allowed us to incorporate the territory’s vision early in the project’s design” and creates “a system of permanent engagement” with local communities.

The company added it will contribute to sustainable development in the area and help “the safeguarding of [the Lickanantay people’s] culture and environmental values”.

    For mining companies, such agreements could help reduce social conflicts and protests, which have delayed and stalled extraction in other parts of South America’s lithium-rich region, known as the lithium triangle.

    “Argentina and Bolivia could learn a lot from what we’re doing [here],” said Rodrigo Guerrero, a researcher at the Santiago-based Espacio Público think-tank, adding that adopting participatory frameworks early on could prevent them from “going through the entire cycle of disputes” that Chile has experienced.

    Justice at last?

    As part of the governance deal, NovaAndino has pledged to adopt technologies that will reduce water use and mitigate the environmental impacts of lithium extraction.

    It has also committed to hold more than 100 annual meetings with community representatives to build a “good faith” relationship, and an Indigenous Advisory Council will meet twice a year with the company’s sustainability committee to discuss its environmental strategy, company sources said. The meetings are due to begin next month.

    To oversee the agreement’s implementation, an assembly – composed of representatives from all 25 signatory communities – will track the project’s progress. In addition, NovaAndino will hold one-on-one meetings with each community to address issues such as the hiring of local people and the protection of Indigenous employees.

    A flamingo at the Chaxa Lagoon in the Atacama salt flat (Photo: REUTERS/Cristian Rudolffi)

    Espíndola said the deal, while far from perfect, was an important step forward.

    “Previously, Indigenous participation was ambiguous. Now we talk about participation at [every] hierarchical level of this process, a very strong empowerment for Indigenous communities,” said Espíndola, adding that it did not give local communities everything they had asked for. For instance, they will not hold veto power over NovaAndino’s decisions or have a formal shareholder role.

    But after years of conflict with mining companies, a form of “participatory justice is being done”, he said.

    Not everyone is convinced that the accord, pushed by Chile’s former leftist government, marks progress, however.

    “Not in our name”

    The negotiations have caused deep divisions among the Lickanantay, some of whom say greater engagement with mining companies will not stop irreparable damage to the salt flats on which their traditional way of life depends. Others fear the promise of more money will further erode community bonds.

    In January 2024, Indigenous communities from five villages closest to the mining operations, including Toconao, blocked the main access roads to the lithium extraction sites. They said the Council of Atacameño Peoples, which represents 18 Lickanantay communities and was leading discussions with the company, no longer spoke for them.

    Official transcripts of consultations on the extension of the lithium contracts and how to share the promised benefits reveal deep divisions. Tensions peaked when communities around the mining operations clashed over how to distribute the multimillion-dollar windfall, with villages closest to the mining sites demanding the largest share.

    Eventually, separate deals establishing a new governance framework over mining activities were reached between Codelco and SQM with 25 local communities, including a specific agreement for the five villages closest to the extraction sites.

    Codelco’s chairman Maximo Pacheco (Photo: REUTERS/Rodrigo Garrido)

    The division caused by the separate deal for the five villages “will cause historic damage” to the unity of the Atacama desert’s Indigenous peoples, said Hugo Flores, president of the Council of Atacameño Associations, a separate group representing farmers, herders and local workers who oppose the mining expansion.

    Sonia Ramos, 83, a renowned Lickanantay healer and well-known anti-mining activist, lamented the fracturing of social bonds over money, and for the sake of meeting government objectives.

    “There is fragmentation among the communities themselves. Everything has transformed into disequilibrium,” said the 83-year-old.

    “[NovaAndino] supposedly has economic significance for the country, but for us, it is the opposite,” she said.

    The company told Climate Home News it has “acted consistently” to promote “transparent, voluntary, and good-faith dialogue with the communities in the territory, recognising their diversity and autonomy, and always respecting their timelines and forms of participation”.

    A one-off deal or a model for others?

    The NovaAndino joint venture is a pillar of Chile’s strategy to double lithium production by 2031 and consolidate the copper-producing nation’s role in the clean energy transition as demand for battery minerals accelerates.

    Chile’s new far-right president, José Antonio Kast, who was sworn in last week, promised to respect the lithium contracts signed by his predecessor’s administration – including the governance model.

    Still, some experts say the splits over the new model highlight the need for legislation that mandates direct engagement and minimum community benefits for all large mining projects.

    “In the past, this has lent itself to clientelism, communities who negotiate best or arrive first get the better deal,” said Pedro Zapata, a programme officer in Chile for the Natural Resource Governance Institute.

    “This can be to the detriment of other communities with less strength. We cannot have first- and second-class citizens subject to the same industry,” he added.

    The government is already negotiating two more public-private partnerships to extract lithium with mining giant Rio Tinto, which it said would include a framework to engage with Indigenous communities and share some of the revenues. The details will need to be negotiated between local people, the government and the company.

    Sharing the benefits of mining

    Under the deal in the Atacama, NovaAndino will run SQM’s current lithium concessions until they expire in 2030 before seeking new permits to expand mining in the region under a vast project known as “Salar Futuro” – a process which will require further mandatory consultations with communities.

    Besides the participatory mechanism, the new agreement promises more money than ever before for salt flat communities.

    A stone arch welcomes visitors to the village of Peine, one of the closest settlements to lithium mining sites in the Atacama salt flat (Photo: REUTERS/Cristian Rudolffi)

    Depending on the global price of lithium and their proximity to the mining operations, Indigenous communities could collectively receive roughly $30 million annually in funding – about double what SQM currently disburses under existing contracts.

    When taking into account the company’s payments to local and regional authorities, contributions could reach $150 million annually, according to the government.

    To access these resources, each community will need to submit a pipeline of projects they would like funding for under a complex arrangement that includes five separate financial streams:

    • A general investment fund will distribute funding based on each village’s size and proximity to the mining sites
    • A development fund will support projects specifically in the five communities closest to the extraction sites
    • Contributions to farmers and livestock associations
    • Contributions to local governments
    • A groundbreaking “intergenerational fund” held in trust for the Lickanantay until 2060

    For many isolated communities in the Atacama desert, financial contributions from mining firms have funded essential public services, such as healthcare and facilities like football pitches and swimming pools.

    In the past, communities have used some of the benefits they received from mining to build their own environmental monitoring units, hiring teams of hydrogeologists and lawyers to scrutinise miners’ activities.

    Espíndola said the new model could pave the way for more ambitious development projects such as water treatment plants and community solar energy projects.

    A man in a white shirt and glasses stands in front of a stone wall
    Sergio Cubillos, president of the Peine community, was one of the Indigenous representatives in the negotiations with Codelco and SQM (Photo credit: Formando Rutas/ Daniela Carvajal)

    Competition for water

    The depletion of water resources is one of local people’s biggest environmental concerns.

    To extract lithium from the salt flats, miners pump lithium-rich brine accumulated over millions of years in underground reservoirs into gigantic pools, where the water is left to evaporate under the sun and leaves behind lithium carbonate.

    One study has shown that the practice is causing the salt flat to sink by up to two centimetres a year. SQM recently said its current operations consume approximately 11,500 to 12,500 litres of industrial freshwater for every metric ton of lithium produced.

    NovaAndino has committed to significantly reduce the company’s water use by returning at least 30% of the water it extracts from the brine and eliminating the use of all freshwater in its operations within five years of obtaining an environmental permit.

      Cristina Dorador, a microbiologist at the University of Antofagasta, told Climate Home News that reinjecting the water underground is untested at a large scale and could impact the chemical composition of the salt flats.

      Continuing to extract lithium from the flats until 2060 could be the “final blow” for this fragile ecosystem, she said.

      Asked to comment on such concerns, NovaAndino said any new technology will be “subject to the highest regulatory standards”, and pledged to ensure transparency through “an updated monitoring system with the participation of Indigenous communities”.

      High price for hard-won gains

      For the five communities living on the doorstep of the lithium pools, one of the biggest gains is being granted physical access to the mining sites to monitor the lithium extraction and its impact on the salt flats.

      That is a first and will strengthen communities’ ability to call out environmental harms, said Sergio Cubillos, the community president of Peine, the village closest to the evaporation ponds. It could also give them the means to seek remediation through the courts if necessary, Espíndola said.

      Gaining such rights represents long-overdue progress, Cubillos said, but it has come at a high price for the Lickanantay people.

      “Communities receiving money today is what has ultimately led to this division, because we haven’t been able to figure out what we want, how we want it, and how we envision our future as a people,” he said.

      Main image: A truck loads concentrated brine at SQM’s lithium mine at the Atacama salt flat in Chile (Photo: REUTERS/Ivan Alvarado)

      The post Landmark deal to share Chile’s lithium windfall fractures Indigenous communities appeared first on Climate Home News.

      Landmark deal to share Chile’s lithium windfall fractures Indigenous communities

      Continue Reading

      Climate Change

      Roadmap launched to restart deadlocked UN plastics treaty talks

      Published

      9 hours ago

      on

      March 18, 2026

      By

      Diplomats will hold a series of informal meetings this year in a bid to revive stalled talks over a global treaty to curb plastic pollution, before aiming to reconvene for the next round of official negotiations at the end of 2026 or early 2027.

      Hoping to find a long-awaited breakthrough in the deeply divided UN process, the chair of the talks, Chilean ambassador Julio Cordano, released a roadmap on Monday to inject momentum into the discussions after negotiations collapsed at a chaotic session in Geneva last August.

      Cordano wrote in a letter that countries would meet in Nairobi from June 30 to July 3 for informal discussions to review all the components of the negotiations, including thorny issues such as efforts to limit soaring plastic production.

        The gathering should result in the drafting of a new document laying the foundations of a future treaty text with options on elements with divergent views, but “no surprises” such as new ideas or compromise proposals. This plan aims to address the fact that countries left Geneva without a draft text to work on – something Cordano called a “significant limitation” in his letter.

        “Predictable pathway”

        The meeting in the Kenyan capital will follow a series of virtual consultations every four to six weeks, where heads of country delegations will exchange views on specific topics. A second in-person meeting aimed at finding solutions might take place in early October, depending on the availability of funding.

        Cordano said the roadmap should offer “a predictable pathway” in the lead-up to the next formal negotiating session, which is expected to take place over 10 days at the end of 2026 or early 2027. A host country has yet to be selected, but Climate Home News understands that Brazil, Azerbaijan or Kenya – the home of the UN Environment Programme – have been put forward as options.

        Countries have twice failed to agree on a global plastics treaty at what were meant to be final rounds of negotiations in December 2024 and August 2025.

        Divisions on plastic production

        One of the most divisive elements of the discussions remains what the pact should do about plastic production, which, according to the UN, is set to triple by 2060 without intervention.

        A majority, which includes most European, Latin American, African and Pacific island nations, wants to limit the manufacturing of plastic to “sustainable levels”. But large fossil fuel and petrochemical producers, led by Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia and India, say the treaty should only focus on managing plastic waste.

        As nearly all plastic is made from planet-heating oil, gas and coal, the sector’s trajectory will have a significant impact on global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

        Countries still far apart

        After an eight-month hiatus, informal discussions restarted in early March at an informal meeting of about 20 countries hosted by Japan.

        A participant told Climate Home News that, while the gathering had been helpful to test ideas, progress remained “challenging”, with national stances largely unchanged.

        The source added that countries would need to achieve a significant shift in positions in the coming months to make reconvening formal negotiations worthwhile.

        Deep divisions persist as plastics treaty talks restart at informal meeting

        Jacob Kean-Hammerson, global plastics policy lead at Greenpeace USA, said the new roadmap offers an opportunity for countries to “defend and protect the most critical provisions on the table”.

        He said that the document expected after the Nairobi meeting “must include and revisit proposals backed by a large number of countries, especially on plastic production, that have previously been disregarded”.

        “These measures are essential to addressing the crisis at its source and must be reinstated as a key part of the negotiations,” he added.

        The post Roadmap launched to restart deadlocked UN plastics treaty talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

        Roadmap launched to restart deadlocked UN plastics treaty talks

        Continue Reading

        Climate Change

        Iran War Shows That Doubling Down on Fossil Fuels Is ‘Delusional,’ UN Climate Chief Says

        Published

        1 day ago

        on

        March 17, 2026

        By

        Price spikes from the war highlight the necessity of the renewable energy transition for stability and national security, the U.N. official says.

        By Keerti Gopal

        The Iran war’s disruption to the global energy market should be a wake-up call for countries that continue to rely on fossil fuels, said United Nations climate chief Simon Stiell in a speech on Monday.

        Iran War Shows That Doubling Down on Fossil Fuels Is ‘Delusional,’ UN Climate Chief Says

        Continue Reading

        Trending

        Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com