COP30 was the first Conference of the Parties (COP) to put critical minerals in the spotlight. Essential to the energy transition, mineral supplies and supply chains are now inextricable from any meaningful climate conversations.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva set the scene early. Speaking at the World Leaders’ Summit in the week prior to COP30, he told attendees: “We cannot discuss the energy transition without addressing critical minerals, which are essential for the production of batteries, solar panels and energy systems.”
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
What followed was a critical mineral hokey cokey, as mentions were in and out of the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) text. Ultimately, however, Russia and China made sure that critical minerals were out.
The critical minerals in question include lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt and graphite: all essential in batteries, electric vehicles (EVs), grid upgrades and energy storage systems. However, the discovery and extraction of these minerals is mired by difficult environmental, social and governance questions, articulated by protestors across COP30.
Host country Brazil is home to one of the largest reserves of rare earths globally, but has faced protests at the impacts of mining on local and indigenous communities; on the conference’s third day, crowds stormed the venue, voicing anger at issues including mercury contamination of Amazonian rivers, such as Tapajós, caused by nearby gold mining activities.
Elsewhere, next year’s co-hosts, Türkiye and Australia, have both faced their share of criticism from local communities. Turkish lawmakers passed a controversial new omnibus bill in July permitting the leasing of agricultural olive groves for lignite coal extraction, prompting affected villagers to go on a hunger strike. In Australia, Rio Tinto’s destruction of the Juukan Gorge sparked anger and distrust between mining companies and indigenous communities, compounded by ongoing disputes around Bravus Mining’s Carmichael coal mine in Queensland and Fortescue’s Solomon Hub in the Pilbara Region.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataRegardless of the subject’s contention and the ultimate exclusion of critical minerals from the COP30 outcome, its discussion alone represents significant change.
Melissa Marengo, senior programme officer at the Natural Resource Governance Institute, tells Mining Technology: “Over the past few years, and especially in recent months, minerals have moved from being treated as a traditional extractive resource to being recognised as strategic assets for the global energy transition.”
Critical minerals at COP30: part of the conversation
Critical minerals are essential in EVs, battery storage and the defence sector, making supply chains a question of national security for the world’s biggest economies.
Proponents of mineral inclusion in COP30’s outcome advocated for the safeguarding of mineral supply chains from weaponisation. Although this didn’t happen in an official format, discussions themselves marked a significant shift.
An initial draft of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Just Transition text, released on 13 November, did not include mention of critical minerals; however, by the following day, a new draft did. It included a clause recognising “the social and environmental risks associated with scaling up supply chains for clean energy technologies, including risks arising from the extraction and processing of critical minerals, recalling the principles and recommendations outlined in the report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals”.
By 15 November, the text was out again, but the yo-yoing wasn’t over. In the draft released on 18 November, the previous text was back in as an optional inclusion, along with a new mention of minerals, recognising “the importance of developing reliable, diversified, sustainable, transparent and responsible supply chains for clean energy technologies, including through environmentally and socially responsible extraction and processing of critical minerals, and of stakeholder engagement and consultation, including through inclusive community engagement across entire value chains with representatives of industries, businesses, workers and local communities”.
However, when the final text was published on 22 November, all mentions were out.
The main supporters of these mentions of critical minerals included the EU, the UK, Australia, Colombia and the African Group of Negotiators (which represented the continent’s 54 countries).
Colombia has extensive reserves of copper, nickel and cobalt, while sub-Saharan Africa is estimated to have around 30% of proven global critical mineral reserves. Delegates from South Africa, Uganda and Burkina Faso were particularly vocal, speaking out on behalf of the continent’s least-developed countries, calling for minerals to be integrated into just transition discussions and the COP30 outcome.
Energy specialist at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Saloni Sachdeva Michael, explains to Mining Technology: “Safeguarding the critical minerals supply chain requires a coordinated, long-term strategy built around diversification, domestic capability-building and fair governance. This is especially important for developing nations, which risk being locked into low-value segments unless global cooperation and fair access are prioritised.”
Ultimately, vetoes came from China and Russia, which were both reported to have been insistent on the dropping of mineral references.
Russia is currently the third-biggest producer of nickel, and has significant deposits of copper, rare earth elements and lithium, which it plans to produce at scale by 2030. Meanwhile, China is the leading refiner for 19 out of 20 critical minerals in the energy sector, and dominates the refining sector with a market share of approximately 70%.
Xia Yingxian, Director General of the Department of Climate Change at China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment attended COP30 and reportedly received a letter from activists calling on China to include critical minerals in the outcome. However, he repeatedly rejected it.
Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice at ActionAid International, tells Mining Technology: “It is deeply disappointing that the final words of text on the just transition mechanism don’t specifically refer to the mineral sector,” although she adds that “there is still scope to make sure the work on improving the rights of communities involved in minerals and metals mining takes place”.
The just transition: COP30 frameworks
While the exclusion of critical minerals and fossil fuels presented a glaring hole, COP30 was seen as an opportunity to demonstrate international collaboration in the face of global tensions; the term “cooperation” duly appeared 15 times across the final global mutirão (“group collaboration”) text.
One perceived success of the conference was the creation of the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM), developed under the UAE JTWP. The JTWP began implementation at COP28 (hosted by the UAE); however, it has so far consisted of regular dialogues but little substantial action.
BAM is intended to offer accountability. Tasneem Essop, executive director at Climate Action Network International, comments: “We came here to get the Belém Action Mechanism – for families, for workers, for communities […] Governments must now honour this Just Transition mechanism with real action. Anything less is a betrayal of people – and of the Paris promise.”
The primary objective of the Paris Agreement (signed at COP21 in 2015) is to limit global warming to well below 2°C, but the document also outlines “the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities”.
Climate control and the transition are inextricable, and Marengo explains that “meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement requires a massive surge in demand for transition minerals. Mineral-producing countries are therefore indispensable to meeting global supply projections – but these expectations – to supply more and supply faster – are passed from international markets to national governments, and ultimately to local territories.
“Greater pressure does not necessarily translate into fairer policies or a shift away from old extractive paradigms. Quite the opposite: it often generates a sense of urgency where procedures are accelerated, standards relaxed and communities sidelined.”
Proponents of BAM hope the framework will bridge the gap between communities and commodities. It sits as part of the broader Belém Package, which consists of 29 decisions, accepted by 195 Parties. It will support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and is intended to act as a platform to coordinate strategies, mobilise resources and monitor progress.
Anderson called BAM “a major legacy”, and “a huge win for the workers, women and civil society groups who came pleading for a framework to ensure climate action also protects jobs and makes lives better”.
Outside of BAM, the package also agreed to mobilise $1.3tn annually for climate action by 2035; triple adaptation finance by the same year; and launch the Global Implementation Accelerator, a voluntary initiative supporting the implementation of countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans.
The package also includes the Belém Mission to 1.5°C, which will drive ambition in NDCs through dialogue and investment cooperation.
Beyond COP30: existing and emerging critical mineral frameworks
Michael says: “COP30 made progress, but the true embedding of critical mineral supply chain resilience and equitable access is happening through G20 initiatives, bilateral partnerships and national industrial strategies.”
Current critical mineral international frameworks include the G7 Minerals Action Plan, the Minerals Security Partnership and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which unites Australia, India, Japan and the US in working towards a prosperous and resilient Indo-Pacific.
The UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals also recently set out principles aiming to “Support a just and equitable transition to renewable energies while harnessing critical energy transition minerals for sustainable development.”
These frameworks prioritise supply chain resilience, considering long-term, targeted financing, leveraging of technology, infrastructure maintenance, and investments in research and development.
More localised national and regional strategies are also emerging. Marengo points to countries including Chile, South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia as examples of countries “developing national strategies to align mineral governance with climate goals and maximise local development benefits”. She also points to the African Union’s Green Minerals Strategy, which acts as a framework to enable African economies and communities to benefit from industrialisation and electrification.
“We are now seeing a rapid acceleration in efforts to reshape mineral governance,” she says. “At the upcoming UN Environment Assembly this December, governments will debate Colombia’s proposal to establish a global accountability framework aimed at reducing the human and environmental harms associated with mining and processing. That debate shows how central minerals have become – not just for climate policy, but for human rights, environmental protection and sustainable development.”
The energy transition is inescapably tied to conversations about a just transition, and critical minerals are likely to become increasingly prevalent at future COPs and beyond.
Considering the implications of COP30 specifically, Anderson concludes that “the text is very clear that it applies to the whole of the economy and is multi-sectoral, and there are also key lessons to take forward from the dialogues that happened earlier this year that did look specifically at the mineral sector”.
