The omission of critical minerals in the communique of COP30
The omission of critical minerals from COP30’s communique was driven by a combination of geopolitical, legal, and procedural factors. First, major economies such as China and Russia resisted explicit references to minerals, fearing that such language could lead to trade restrictions or sustainability conditions on mineral exports. Such minerals experts are assets they consider strategic for their economic and geostrategic advantage. Second, there was concern over the legal ramifications of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) obligations. Mining companies and their partner governments prefer ESG to remain voluntary, as mandatory frameworks would impose enforceable obligations that could disrupt current practices. Finally, negotiators prioritised consensus on fossil fuel phase-out and climate finance, leaving minerals sidelined to avoid deadlock. This is testament to why it was removed from earlier drafts of working documents prior to the closing of COP30. This last-minute omission or deletion of important elements of global agreements mirrors a recurring pattern: when issues become too contentious, they are deferred or dropped entirely.
Risks to global supply chains
Ignoring critical minerals in climate negotiations has profound implications for global supply chains. The energy transition depends on minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel for batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. Yet, without enforceable ESG frameworks, mining remains vulnerable to environmental degradation, human rights abuses, and governance failures. These risks translate into supply chain vulnerabilities, as disruptions in sourcing or reputational crises can stall progress toward net zero. Sustainable mining and responsible sourcing must be treated as integral to supply chain security, not as peripheral technical issues.
Historical parallel with SDGs
Strikingly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) make no mention of critical minerals, despite their importance for sustainable development. This was not due to ignorance. During the final phase of the development Millennium Development Goals in 2014, the UN convened technical teams to discuss critical minerals for the SDGs. However, disagreements and contentious issues led to the complete removal of references to critical minerals and its significance for just transitions, just as happened at COP30. This historical parallel underscore persistent tensions around mineral governance and the reluctance to confront the environmental and social costs of mining. The result: another missed opportunity to integrate sustainable critical minerals mining as an imperative for just transitions into global sustainability frameworks.
Why future negotiations must prioritise sustainable mining:
Critical minerals cannot be wished away. Their continued presence on negotiation agendas, even as a divisive topic, signals their importance. Future COPs and the post-2030 SDG agenda must integrate language on sustainable mining, defined as mining that protects ecosystems, society, and livelihoods. This is not merely an environmental imperative; it is a matter of justice and supply chain security. Entities (e.g., mining companies) and countries (e.g., Russia and China) resisting change may benefit from the status quo now, but they risk losing in a future where sustainability is enforced. Continuous engagement, side discussions, and academic advocacy are essential to keep this issue alive.
As a UKRI Future Leaders Fellow working on Just Transitions in Critical Minerals Governance, I argue that the next epoch-making moment must not repeat past mistakes. The promise lies in ensuring that critical minerals and sustainable mining become central to global sustainability frameworks.
The omission of critical minerals from COP30 is a stark reminder of the challenges ahead. To achieve a just and sustainable energy transition, future negotiations must prioritise sustainable mining and responsible sourcing. The time to act is now, before history repeats itself yet again, considering that the history of mining has never been environmentally and socially friendly.