Nov 268 min read

Does the energy transition pose a human rights issue?

An introduction to the adverse social impacts of transition mining.

This newsletter was written by Christine Nikander for a collaboration between Palsa & Pulk and The E-Waste Column. It has been published in both “The Just Transition Newsletter” and “The E-Waste Newsletter”.

Dependency on critical raw materials

The energy transition relies heavily on minerals needed for renewable technologies, electrification, and to build up battery capacity to store the produced renewable energy. Many of these minerals are mined in areas with “poor[er] infrastructure, sanitation or healthcare provisions, [or] unstable governance”. The mining can have adverse effects on workers, local and Indigenous communities, and the environment.[i]

The strong dependency on transition minerals to achieve net zero targets poses a number of issues. It is likely to add to geopolitical tensions and to place an additional strain on extraction areas. It may lead to compromises on human rights and environmental standards, and thereby increase the issues found in mineral supply chains. It could also slow down the transition to renewables and increase the cost for the transition – and even mean that net zero targets can no longer be met on time.[ii]

Adverse impacts of mining

The production of renewable energy technologies and batteries brings an array of environmental and human rights risks with it. For example, “some of the mining operations for raw materials like cobalt [used in batteries] are notorious for human rights violations, including child labor”.[iii] Close to all mining causes a degree of damage to communities and ecosystems. The mining of transition minerals has already caused issues regarding – for example – water and land rights, and Indigenous People’s rights.[iv] According to the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, there have been 630 allegations of human rights violations related to the extraction of transition minerals in 2010 to 2022.[v]

The contamination and scarcity of freshwater, along with changes in land use, are areas of major concern. Large amounts of water are needed for mining and mineral processing. Yet, a good half of all copper and lithium production sites worldwide are in areas facing “high water stress”. The inadequate management of water in mines (incl. high water use, low water reuse, and contaminated water discharges) can adversely impact water resources, and surrounding ecosystems and communities. Similarly, changes in land use and land cover can lead to communities being displaced and habitats being lost. Water and land contamination have occurred – for example – from a lithium mine in Jadar, Serbia and from an open-cast copper mine in Galicia, Spain.[vi]

The mining of gold and copper in the Amazon has polluted local water and food supplies, and it has added to the ongoing large-scale deforestation in the area. The mining has also increased the conflict between Indigenous Peoples, miners, and the military. Since 2011, on average three people in the Amazon have been killed per week trying to protect their land, according to a Global Witness report from October 2022. A quarter of the deaths were tied to the extractive industries and the mining industry was “directly linked to the most killings”. Notably, most of the individuals killed were Indigenous.[vii]

Conflict minerals in renewables

In many conflict areas or politically unstable regions – particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and neighboring countries, the trade of minerals may be used to fund armed groups. This trading may be linked to corruption and money laundering, and it can cause human rights abuses. Conflict minerals can be found in electronics, cars, and jewelry. Tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold – collectively referred to as “3TG” – are common conflict minerals.[viii]

Between 15% and 30% of the global supply of cobalt – needed to produce batteries – originates from the DRC. According to Amnesty International, children – as young as seven – work in artisanal cobalt mines in the DRC. The mining conditions are reportedly dangerous and hazardous, and the children work for low salaries.[ix]

More broadly, the extraction and trading of transition minerals can be tied to conflict, violence, and human rights abuses. For example, nickel extraction in Guatemala is linked to forced displacement, sexual violence, and murder. Moreover, considerable shares of the global transition mineral reserves are found in areas that are politically fragile, corrupt, or affected by conflict – such as the DRC, Afghanistan, Guinea, and Guatemala.[x]

To ensure sustainable development in the energy transition, supply chains for transition minerals should be governed in a transparent, responsible, and accountable manner. To this end, collaboration between the private sector, governments, civil society, and local communities is key. While there is a legal framework in place for 3TG minerals, most transition minerals (incl. cobalt, lithium, and bauxite) are not yet addressed. For all transition minerals, the potential risks of conflict and violence, health and safety violations, environmental damage, child and forced labor, and other human rights abuses need to be addressed.[xi]

Indigenous Peoples’ rights in mining

According to the UN, “Indigenous communities […] help to maintain 80% of the biodiversity left […], and [maintain] some of the world’s most valuable carbon sinks and natural resources.” Yet, over half of the “transition materials [are] located on or near land where Indigenous people live”. Moreover, “85% of […] lithium extraction projects [are] on or near land managed or inhabited by Indigenous people.”[xii]

Consequently, Indigenous Peoples are particularly strongly affected by transition mining. A 2021 report from MSCI Inc. found that “97% of nickel, 89% of copper, 79% of lithium and 68% of cobalt reserves and resources in the U.S. are located within 35 miles of Native American reservations”. As a result, violations of Indigenous Peoples’ rights have already occurred – for example – through the operation of an open-cast lithium mine near the Indigenous community lands of Fort McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone in Nevada, USA.[xiii]

According to the Autonomous University of Barcelona, mining is “the most common cause of environmental conflicts involving indigenous people”. Overall, “24.7% of [the] environmental conflict involving indigenous people” are caused by mining. Disputes of this sort have for example occurred in Quito, Ecuador. In total, 258 conflicts involving Indigenous People have been observed, but the “actual number […] is expected to be much higher” – largely due to “limited data coverage”. Notably, “an additional 7% of conflict cases involve other non-Indigenous place-based communities with long-term connections to their lands”.[xiv]

Labour issues in renewables

The processing of transition minerals and manufacturing of renewable technologies have also been linked to labour issues. For example, the Xinjiang region in the north-west of China is the source of 40-45% of global solar-grade polysilicon. Approximately 2.6 million Uyghur and Kazakh individuals have been subjected to coercion and confinement – as well as “re-education programs” – in this area. Consequently, the US government has designated polysilicon originating from China as a material that is likely to have been produced using forced or child labor.[xv]

As another example, the demand for balsa wood – used in turbine blades – has grown rapidly in light of the energy transition. This has reportedly led to substandard labor conditions for workers in the Amazon region of Ecuador, including payment in alcohol and/or drugs. The logging has also increased deforestation and negatively impacted the land rights of Indigenous Peoples in Peru.[xvi]

Ways forward

According to the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, there is “a need for significant improvement in human rights commitment and practice across the [renewable energy] sector as a whole”. Their 2023 Renewable Energy & Human Rights Benchmark “assessed and scored the human rights policies and practices of 28 leading renewable energy supply chain firms across wind and solar project developers, oil and gas companies entering into renewables, and wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers”. The benchmark highlighted that the sector as a whole is currently “not ready to deliver a fair energy transition”. It “found that while the renewable energy sector has made progress in adopting broad human rights policies, it is falling woefully short in addressing the most salient human rights risks”. It also demonstrated that there are “notable gaps between policy and practice, and dangerous shortcomings on Indigenous Peoples’ rights, land rights, and forced labour”.[xvii]

To meet international climate objectives, the energy transition needs to occur quickly and on a large scale. This should however not come at the cost of labor rights, human rights, and the environment. We therefore need to put local communities and the environment at the center of the energy transition. Optimally, we would put in place a global regulatory framework which governs both large and small-scale mining activities well, is “inclusive of marginalised communities”, and defines clear minimum safety and environmental standards. Mining locally in high governance areas (such as the EU and the USA) could also prove helpful in this regard.[xviii]

As our societies transition over to renewable energies, our policymakers and judicial systems should not overlook the new human rights and environmental issues that this transition brings with it. In light of this, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has suggested that: “A more responsible and sustainable mining industry is urgently needed […] This can only happen if corporate and investor due diligence regarding human rights and environmental risks includes robust and effective participation of key stakeholders, including communities, to identify, monitor and mitigate risks that would undermine a fast and fair transition. It also requires community voices to be heard and considered, and the prioritisation of recycling and reuse of existing minerals to ease the demand for new minerals, including through incentivising and strengthening the circular economy.”[xix]

Would you be interested to learn more about human rights considerations in the life cycle of an electric vehicle battery? You can explore the social impacts and EU regulations that apply to the different life stages of an EV battery in Palsa & Pulk’s interactive visual.

The next newsletter will explore the role of digital product passports in creating a just transition. If you want to be notified when it comes out, please subscribe to our mailing list.

About the author

Christine Nikander is the founder of the environmental and social sustainability consultancy, Palsa & Pulk. She frequently speaks and writes about the environmental and human rights issues that arise through global supply chains, the energy transition, and the mining of critical raw minerals. Christine studied law at the universities of Columbia (New York), Edinburgh (Scotland), and Leiden (the Netherlands). She has been writing The E-Waste Column weekly since 2022.

About The E-Waste Column

The E-Waste Column is a weekly column about e-waste, transition minerals, and critical raw materials. It touches on a range of topics including ESG, sustainable development, circular economy, EU law and policymaking, corporate social responsibility, the transition to renewable energy, the EU Green Deal, supply chain due diligence and auditing, human environmental rights, business and human rights, climate law, and corporate sustainability.

Stay up to date

Our weekly column is published on Wednesdays at 12PM CET (The Hague) or 6AM EST (New York) on our website and on LinkedIn. Our monthly newsletter is published here on our blog, on Substack, and on LinkedIn.