Brazil

The Xingu River is being silenced, but not its people

A river is always a path, sustenance, and memory.  At the Volta Grande (or Great Bend) of the Xingu River, deep in the Brazilian Amazon, the water did more than just flow: it taught people when to plant, when to fish, and when to celebrate.  There, life moved to the rhythm of the river.  But that began to change in 2010, when plans were underway to build the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, and a silent question began to grow: Who decides the fate of the water?  Six years later, on May 5, 2016, when the dam was inaugurated, nearly 80% of the Xingu River’s flow had been diverted.As early as 2018, organizations and communities were warning that the flow management plan imposed on the Xingu River for the operation of the hydroelectric plant foreshadowed a future of drought.That warning has come true.Today, entire stretches of the river are dry. More than 100 kilometers of the Volta Grande have lost their natural flow. The water, which once sustained biodiversity and local ways of life, no longer flows as it once did.  Without enough water, the fish have stopped reproducing. There has been no spawning for three years.  The river’s silence has turned into hunger, uncertainty, and disruption.  The death of the fish is not just an environmental impact: it is the breakdown of a way of life.  Indigenous, riverine, and fishing communities have lost not only their primary source of food but also their autonomy and their connection to the land.  Today, the legacy of Belo Monte is a growing accumulation of ecological, social, and cultural degradation.  However, this story is not yet over. Time for justice for the Xingu River and the life it sustainsTen years after the Belo Monte Dam began operations, the reported impacts have been confirmed, but something unexpected has also grown stronger: resistance.The affected communities remain organized, active, and determined. They continue to speak out, demand reparations, and defend their right to live alongside the river.That strength is evident today in the protests against new projects in the area.Because for these communities, the struggle is not just against a project; it is for the survival of their way of life.Today is a moment of justice for them.  The complaint against the Brazilian State for its international responsibility in the case has been before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights since 2011, pending a decision that could mark a turning point for the communities of the Xingu Basin.  The complaint contains the legal and evidentiary elements necessary for the Commission to admit it, determine that there were several human rights violations, and refer the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, whose ruling could set a precedent for state regulation of megaprojects in the context of the climate crisis; public participation; and the protection of indigenous peoples, traditional communities, and key ecosystems such as the Amazon.But as the process moves forward slowly, the impacts continue to worsen every day. The urgency is not legal; it is human. Every unanswered cycle is another cycle of drought, biodiversity loss, and mounting violations.    In this case, making a decision is not just an institutional matter; it is a matter of life expectancy for those who depend on the river.What happened with Belo Monte has become a symbol.  It is a clear example of how projects marketed as “clean energy” can have profound and lasting impacts when they disregard human rights.  At a time when the world is seeking energy solutions to address the climate crisis, we cannot repeat old patterns of injustice.  Learn More 

Ten years of Belo Monte: The time for justice has come

Ten years after its inauguration, the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant (UHE) in Pará returns to the center of public debate, this time under the scrutiny of the Inter-American Human Rights System. More than an anniversary, this milestone reinforces the urgency of an effective institutional response:justice cannot continue to be postponed.The case, currently pending before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), brings together a substantial body of evidence regarding human rights violations associated with the Belo Monte UHE. Filed by a coalition of civil society organizations, including the Inter-American Association for the Defense of the Environment (AIDA), Global Justice, Coordenação das Organizações Indígenas da Amazônia Brasileira (COIAB), Movimento Xingu Vivo para Sempre (MXVPS), and the Conselho Indigenista Missionário (CIMI), the petition consolidates allegations of violations of the rights to life, health, prior consultation, and a healthy environment. The case is at an advanced stage of review and could soon  be referred to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.A decade on, the socio-environmental impacts remain significant and largely unmitigated. The Volta Grande do Xingu—a stretch of approximately 130 km directly affected by the artificial reduction in river flow—represents the project’s most serious liability. The alteration of the hydrological regime, compounded by extreme events associated with climate change, has compromised local ecosystems, disrupted the reproductive cycle of species, reduced navigability, and threatened the food and water security of populations that depend directly on the river.Indigenous communities, riverine populations, and artisanal fishers face the ongoing deterioration of their ways of life, including reduced fish availability and impacts on fishing livelihoods. Additional harms include inadequate resettlements, increased violence, mental health impacts, and threats to cultural practices and traditional  ways of life.Unlike the debates that characterized the project’s implementation phase, today’s discussion is shaped by the climate emergency and new international regulatory standards. Advisory Opinion OC-32 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights provides clear guidelines on states’ obligations to protect human rights in the face of the climate crisis, recognizing the right to a healthy environment as a foundational principle. In this context, the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Plant case is a significant test of how   energy development, environmental protection, and the  rights of local populations can—and must—be reconciled.The organizations monitoring the case highlight non-compliance with precautionary measures issued by the Commission as a key reason to advance to the Court. The legal merit of the case, combined with its international significance, positions the case as ready for adjudication."More than a decade after the start of the Belo Monte hydroelectric project, the impacts on the Xingu River continue and are worsening, exacerbated by pressure for new projects and the climate crisis. The communities remain mobilized for justice and confident in the Inter-American Commission’s efforts to bring the case before the Court—the final step to ensure full reparations and the protection of the territory and its ways of life," said Marcella Torres, legal coordinator of AIDA’s Human Rights Program.According to Melisanda Trentin, coordinator of Socio-Environmental and Climate Justice at Justiça Global, the Belo Sun mining project is moving forward in the Volta Grande do Xingu region with consultation flaws identical to those of the Belo Monte project. “What is at stake in the region is the accumulation of harm and violations of human and environmental rights. A river with reduced flow, communities facing food insecurity and altered ways of life, and now a new project that repeats the same violations denounced in the Inter-American System for over 10 years,” she points out.For the signatory organizations, the ten-year mark represents a critical window for justice. The Belo Monte case is no longer an isolated episode— it stands as a benchmark for the concrete application of environmental justice in the Amazon, amid growing climate pressure and demands for state accountability.ABOUT - Belo Monte is the fourth-largest hydroelectric power plant in the world, built on the Xingu River in the state of Pará, in the heart of the Amazon. With an installed capacity of 11,233 MW, it was inaugurated on May 5, 2016. Its operation diverts 80% of the Xingu River’s flow through a canal 500 meters wide and 75 km long. The flooded area between the canal and the reservoir covers 516 km², larger than the city of Chicago, of which 400 km² was native forest.#JutiçaNoXingu See the statement from the petitioners in the Belo Monte case before the IACHR Read what the petitioning organizations in the case have to say:Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB)"There is no legal certainty without respect for the inherent rights of indigenous peoples. In the Amazon, this defense goes beyond the legal realm: it is a commitment to life, to the integrity of territories, and to the planet’s climate balance. The harm that the construction of the Belo Monte Dam has caused to indigenous populations and the environment has become a reality and is irreversible. COIAB’s Legal Advisory Office works to ensure that the Constitution, international treaties, and the self-determination of indigenous peoples are effectively respected at all levels of decision-making," states Gabriele Baré, coordinator of COIAB’s Legal Advisory Office.Movimento Xingu Vivo Para Sempre "Belo Monte uprooted people from the riverbanks and scattered the Xingu people far and wide, away from the river, their community, and the daily life they knew and loved. The riverine dwellers ceased to be who they were; the fisherwomen ceased to be who they were; they became nothing, many of them wandering the outskirts of cities. These people lost their identity and, with it, their soul. All that remained was emptiness and loneliness. The impact of the loss of their way of life cannot be compensated, but it must be acknowledged so that some form of redress can be made," says Ana Laide Barbosa, an educator with the Xingu Vivo para Sempre Movement.Observatory of Isolated Indigenous Peoples (OPI)"The construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric dam has exacerbated threats and pressures on the indigenous peoples of the Middle Xingu region in a manner similar to what occurred during the dictatorship with the opening of the Trans-Amazonian Highway in the same region. Recently contacted peoples such as the Parakanã and the Arara have suffered from alarming rates of invasions and illegal deforestation on their lands, and the refuge of the isolated indigenous groups of Ituna Itatá has become one of the most deforested areas in Brazil. At the same time, the diversion of the Xingu River’s waters causes ecocidal damage to the indigenous peoples of Volta Grande; and harmful impact compensation policies have had disintegrating and ethnocidal effects on nearly all the peoples. “For all these reasons, the hydroelectric dam has become yet another example of the colonial relationship established by the Brazilian state with the Amazonian peoples and a debt of reparation that must be acknowledged and addressed," says Helena Palmquist, deputy coordinator of the Observatory of Isolated and Recently Contacted Indigenous Peoples (OPI). 

COP30 ends — with a few achievements to move forward

With more than 25 hours of delay, the 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) has come to an end. The so-called "Amazon COP," held in the Brazilian city of Belém do Pará, leaves behind disappointment for failing to change course, but also some advances that can help push climate action forward. It was not a total failure: multilateralism remains intact, though battered.COP30 was marked by the presence of Indigenous peoples, especially from the Amazon basin, who filled the streets and side events. However, according to reports, only a fraction of these delegations gained access to the formal negotiation rooms, while a disproportionate number of representatives from the fossil fuel industry participated in the official event. This imbalance reflects the democratic health of the climate regime: at the Amazon COP, the power of Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples was felt in the streets, but their voices remained underrepresented in decision-making spaces.A few days into the conference, the latest synthesis report of updated nationally determined contributions was released. Its message was more bitter than sweet, but it offered one important takeaway: although the gap to keep global warming below 1.5°C remains enormous and complex, the report confirms that the Paris Agreement has indeed helped steer the challenge. We are in a better position than in a scenario without the agreement: projected emissions growth has been slowed, though not nearly enough.At this point, it is clear that COPs will not "save the world," but it also seems impossible to overcome this crisis without the cooperative platform they provide. From that perspective, it is worth asking what COP30 leaves us. The approved agreement: Global MutirãoThe word "Mutirão" references the spirit of collective effort—body and soul—that Brazil sought to bring to the international negotiation process at this COP.The approved agreement reiterates the goal of keeping the planet’s temperature increase below 1.5°C, acknowledging that time is running out. To that end, it proposes two voluntary mechanisms, led by the Presidency, which for now seem more like statements of good intent than tools with teeth: a "Global Implementation Accelerator" and the "Belém Mission for 1.5°C."On financing, the text establishes a two-year work program on Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, which concerns the public resources developed countries must provide, understood in the context of Article 9 as a whole.A footnote was added to clarify that this does not prejudge the implementation of the new global goal. Civil society organizations warn that this formulation risks further diluting developed countries’ specific obligations under the narrative of "all sources of financing," without clear rules on who must actually provide the resources and under what conditions. The real value of all this remains to be seen in practice. What was gained: A new mechanism for a just transitionA major achievement of COP30 was the adoption of the Belém Action Mechanism (BAM), a new institutional arrangement under the Just Transition Work Programme. It was the main banner carried by organized civil society.The mechanism is designed as a hub to centralize and coordinate just transition initiatives around the world, providing technical assistance and international cooperation to ensure the transition does not repeat the mistakes of the fossil era.The text incorporates many of the principles championed by Latin American civil society—including human rights, environmental and labor protections, free, prior and informed consent, and the inclusion of marginalized groups—as essential elements for achieving ambitious climate action.Even with gaps in safeguards and governance definitions, the BAM is a concrete step forward for this COP on climate justice. It creates a starting point to discuss not only whether there will be a transition, but how it will be done and under what rules, so as not to replicate the logic of the fossil economy. Its design and implementation will be debated at upcoming COPs, where it will be crucial for the region to arrive with solid, united proposals. Ending fossil fuels and deforestation: Two “almosts” that move us forwardAn agreement to leave behind fossil fuels and end deforestation—directly addressing the main drivers of the climate crisis—"almost" made it into the final decision.More than 80 countries from both the global north and south called for a roadmap to exit oil, gas, and coal. More than 90 supported a roadmap to stop and reverse deforestation by 2030. Although these requests made their way into drafts of the closing decision, they disappeared from the final text after resistance from major fossil fuel producers.Still, we do not leave empty-handed: Brazil, as COP30 Presidency, announced it will advance these roadmaps outside the formal framework of the UNFCCC. For the fossil fuel phaseout, Colombia committed to co-organize, with the Netherlands, the first global conference on the topic in April 2026.Although these items were not secured within the official negotiations, it is worth celebrating that—for the first time—such a broad coalition of countries united to achieve them. These two "almosts" matter: they set a new political and legal baseline for the rounds ahead. Two tools to advance adaptationCOP30 delivered tools to keep adaptation negotiations moving forward.The Mutirão decision calls for tripling collective adaptation finance by 2035, tied to the $300 billion USD per year agreed under the new global goal. This falls short of what the poorest countries asked for (tripling by 2030, with an explicit figure) and lacks clarity or guarantees regarding the role of developed countries. But it is a political anchor worth building on.At the same time, a first package of 59 indicators was adopted for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). Several African countries and experts described them as "unclear, impossible to measure, and in many cases unusable," because they sacrifice precision and grounding in community realities in order to unblock the agreement. In response, the text included the "Belém–Addis Vision," a two-year window to correct flaws and make the framework operational by 2027.In short, we have more promises of money and an indicator framework weaker than necessary, but also a process through which the region can continue pushing for a useful GGA and for fair, sufficient adaptation finance. Loss and damage: Slow and uncertainProgress on this issue has been painfully slow compared with the urgency of the problem. At COP30, the third review of the Warsaw International Mechanism was finally approved. The result is frustrating: discussions have taken a decade while communities are already paying the cost of warming.On the other hand, the Loss and Damage Response Fund, created two years ago, issued its first call for proposals, with an initial package of $250 million USD in grants available over the next six months. The Fund has $790 million USD pledged, but only $397 million USD actually deposited—an enormous gap compared to the hundreds of billions estimated annually for developing countries.The expected political pressure for developed countries to scale up contributions was largely diluted in the final text, although the Fund was at least linked to the new global financing goal agreed at COP29. A new Gender Action PlanCOP30 concluded with the adoption of a new Gender Action Plan under the renewed Lima Work Programme. The Plan identifies five priority areas: capacity-building and knowledge; women’s participation and leadership; coherence among processes; gender-responsive implementation and means of implementation; and monitoring and reporting. It also provides a roadmap to ensure climate action is truly gender-responsive, with indicators to track progress. Methane: A super-pollutant still lacking the spotlight science demandsAt COP30, short-lived climate pollutants—especially methane—gained visibility thanks to a dedicated pavilion and dialogues with regional and global actors. The Global Methane Status Report 2025 was also presented, noting “significant” progress since the 2021 launch of the Global Methane Pledge. However, it warns that current progress remains far from the goal of reducing methane emissions by 30% by 2030.In the official negotiations, the draft of the Sharm el-Sheikh Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme included an explicit reference to methane mitigation through proper waste management, but that mention was removed from the final text, leaving only a general call to improve waste management and diminishing the focus on the urgent need to reduce emissions of a pollutant whose mitigation is essential to achieving the Paris Agreement goals. Still, during COP30, the global “No Organic Waste (NOW) Plan to Accelerate Solutions” was launched, aiming to reduce methane emissions from organic waste by 30% by 2030.Overall, this COP missed a crucial opportunity to advance its core objective. If we truly want to stay on track with the Paris Agreement, we must treat methane as what it is: a decisive opportunity we are still not seizing. How we close COP30 and prepare for the nextCOP31 will be held in Turkey, under the presidency of Australia. And despite the shortcomings of COP30, there are at least four things to defend and build on:The normalization of the debate on phasing out fossil fuels, with more than 80 countries openly calling for a roadmap and Colombia–Netherlands taking that discussion to a dedicated conference in 2026.A forest agenda that, although left out of the text, carries the promise of a Brazilian roadmap and explicit support from a wide group of countries.A small but real advance on adaptation, with the decision to triple finance and a first set of indicators that, while weak, offer a basis to push for improvements.The creation of a new mechanism for a just transition, which can shape how the transition unfolds—bringing together and strengthening efforts that support and protect workers, communities, and Indigenous peoples. 

The home stretch of COP30: Shadows, contradictions, and some glimmers of hope

The first week is over, and the political phase of the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) has begun in Belém do Pará, Brazil. These are the days when decisions must be made.A COP had not been held in a country where public protest is possible since 2021 — and people have certainly made their voices heard. On Saturday, a massive demonstration took place: thousands demanded climate justice in the streets, to the rhythm of Amazonian drums. There was also a theatrical "funeral for fossil fuels," reminiscent of Tim Burton, with monsters and somber widows bidding farewell to an era that must be buried.But it has not all been carnival. Indigenous leaders blocked access to the event several times and even entered the "blue zone" — the restricted area — en masse, denouncing the exploitation of their territories. Their discontent is absolute. Although COP authorities met with the group, they soon sent a letter to the Brazilian government requesting increased security and the dispersal of protests. Human rights and environmental organizations have warned about the risks of criminalizing protest and the harmful message this sends about the role of Indigenous peoples.These protests reflect communities that ended up being a minority in an event that promised to be inclusive. There was also widespread criticism of the disproportionately large number of fossil fuel industry representatives involved in negotiations — a dynamic that makes the path toward climate justice even more complicated.Finally, advisory opinions (AOs) must not be left out of this review. While not formally on the agenda, they have made a strong impact. Their central message is powerful: international cooperation is not optional — it is a legal obligation. It is no surprise, then, that the theme keeps resurfacing: in side events, in constant references by civil society and some national delegations, and in cross-cutting mentions across debates on finance, adaptation, and transition. The AOs are not merely being cited; they are being embraced. Momentum is building to fully unleash their potential at this COP and beyond. Negotiations: Four key issues in “presidential consultations”The COP Presidency acted quickly with a novel approach: to adopt the agenda without delays, it set aside four complex issues and moved them into “presidential consultations.”Article 9.1 — Public Funding from Developed Countries. The debate centers on whether climate financing should come only from public sources or also from private sources, as well as on accountability and reporting standards. Developed nations — which are legally obligated to provide this financing — are resisting, while vulnerable countries urgently need the funds to survive the climate crisis.Unilateral Climate-Related Trade Measures. These include policies such as carbon border taxes. They are considered unfair or protectionist, especially by Global South countries with less capacity to reduce emissions. Negotiations aim to prevent arbitrary trade barriers while respecting climate action.NDCs and Ambition. According to the latest NDC synthesis report, there is a significant gap between current commitments and what is required to stay below 1.5°C. Many negotiators argue that agreeing on concrete measures to close that gap is essential, but large emitters continue to resist.Synthesis of Climate Transparency Reports. Under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework, countries must periodically report emissions, actions taken, and financial support provided or received. At COP30, the debate centers on how to make these synthesis reports more robust, comprehensive, and useful. The consultations have been tense and slow. On Sunday, the Presidency published a "summary note" outlining possible pathways, and today a draft decision was released, though reactions are still forthcoming. In the coming days, closed-door sessions will continue and could lead to various outcomes. Based on the draft, it seems increasingly likely that COP30 will end with a “cover decision” consolidating all progress and addressing these complex matters. The final scope will depend heavily on what happens during the next four days. A just energy transition: Promises and a mechanism that worksThe Belém Action Mechanism for a Just Transition is a new institutional arrangement under the UNFCCC, championed by NGOs and Global South countries. Its objective is to bring order to the currently fragmented landscape of just transition efforts. The mechanism would coordinate initiatives, systematize knowledge, and provide quality financing and support — essentially evolving the Just Transition Work Program discussed since COP27.Civil society, particularly the Climate Action Network (CAN), has invested enormous effort in developing a strong decision that advances the creation of this mechanism. The G77 + China — the largest negotiating bloc of developing countries — supported this proposal, earning CAN’s "Ray of Light" award, given to actors making significant contributions to climate justice.Some developed countries presented less ambitious proposals, but even that confirms that convergence is drawing closer. Civil society remains optimistic that a concrete, positive outcome will be achieved — and ready to celebrate it. A path to phase out fossil fuelsThis story began in 2023 at COP28 in Dubai, when, for the first time, the idea of phasing out fossil fuels appeared in an official COP text.Now, at the opening of COP30, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva explicitly referenced a "route" for the energy transition, while Environment Minister Marina Silva has worked to reinforce the political momentum. Meanwhile, Colombia issued a declaration referencing the advisory opinions and seeking international support for the initiative. Several industrialized countries have revived their position through the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance.Today, 63 countries support a commitment to "Transition Away from Fossil Fuels." However, this is not yet part of the formal negotiation agenda — initiatives remain fragmented, and efforts proceed in parallel. What could emerge is a concrete action plan, a dedicated section in the final decision, or perhaps a roadmap for a future roadmap. The alternative is that it remains a voluntary coalition of willing countries pushing the idea forward. Climate finance: The central — and most complicated — issueFinance remains the central issue at this COP, and perhaps the most complex. Several deeply interconnected discussions are underway:Article 9.1: Developing countries insist that public financing from developed nations is a binding obligation that cannot be replaced by private investment.Adaptation: A strong consensus is forming to triple the adaptation finance goal (to about USD 120 billion annually) while improving transparency and direct access to funds.The Baku–Belém Roadmap: This initiative seeks to scale up global climate finance to USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035 through a combination of public, multilateral, and private flows.Loss and Damage Facility: The fund is technically operational but not fully capitalized. New contributions from Spain and Germany are welcome — but insufficient to meet global needs.Tropical Forests Forever Facility: Brazil has proposed this as an “investment model” for tropical forest countries. Civil society has expressed serious concerns: the model depends heavily on volatile market investments and lacks safeguards to ensure the protection of local communities and ecosystem integrity. Adaptation progress, but under the shadow of chronic underfundingDiscussions on adaptation are unfolding on two parallel fronts:Indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation. Ten years after the Paris Agreement, there is still no consensus on how to track adaptation progress. A working group narrowed approximately 9,000 proposed indicators down to about 100, but technical and political challenges persist. Some African and Arab countries have asked to postpone final adoption until they have the financial resources and capacity to implement them. A prevailing sentiment is: "no indicators without funding" — adopting metrics without support would repeat past mistakes.Adaptation finance. Although adaptation financing is not formally included within the Global Goal on Adaptation, the two issues are inseparable. Without adequate financial support, indicators alone will be ineffective. Following the agreement on a new climate finance goal at COP29, the current debate focuses on aligning that goal with adaptation needs — especially through technology transfer, capacity building, and direct-access funding channels. Substantial gaps remain, and negotiations continue to hinge on how to categorize financial flows (private vs. public, domestic vs. international). 

The ABCs of "critical" or transition minerals and their role in energy production

By Mayela Sánchez, David Cañas and Javier Oviedo* There is no doubt that we need to move away from fossil fuels to address the climate crisis. But what does it mean to switch to other energy sources?To make a battery or a solar panel, raw materials from nature are also used.Some of these raw materials are minerals which, due to their characteristics and in the context of the energy transition, have been descriptively named "critical" minerals or transition minerals.What are these minerals, where are they found, and how are they used?Below we answer the most important questions about these mineral resources, because it is crucial to know which natural resources will supply the new energy sources, and to ensure that their extraction respects human rights and planetary limits, so that the energy transition is just. What are "critical" or transition minerals and why are they called that?They are a group of minerals with a high capacity to store and conduct energy. Because of these properties, they are used in the development of renewable energy technologies, such as solar panels, batteries for electric mobility, or wind turbines.They are so called because they are considered strategic to the energy transition. The term "critical" refers to elements that are vital to the economy and national security, but whose supply chain is vulnerable to disruption. This means that transition minerals may be strategic minerals, but not critical in terms of security and the economy.However, given the urgency of climate action, some states and international organizations have classified transition minerals as "critical" minerals in order to promote and facilitate access to these raw materials.They are also often referred to as transition minerals because they are considered essential for the technological development of renewable energy sources, such as those mentioned above. And in the context of the energy transition, energy sources that use these minerals are the most sought-after to replace fossil energy sources. What are the most important "critical" or transition minerals?The most important transition minerals are cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, nickel and rare earth.But there are at least 19 minerals used in various renewable energy technologies: bauxite, cadmium, cobalt, copper, chromium, tin, gallium, germanium, graphite, indium, lithium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silicon, tellurium, titanium, zinc, and the "rare" earth. What are "rare" earth elements and why are they so called?The "rare" earth elements are the 16 chemical elements of the lanthanoid or lanthanide group, plus Ithrium (Y), whose chemical behavior is virtually the same as that of the lanthanoids.They are Scandium, Ithrium, Lanthanum, Cerium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, Samarium, Europium, Gadolinium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Holmium, Erbium, Tullium, Iterbium and Lutetium.They are so called because when they were discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries, they were less well known than other elements considered similar, such as calcium. But the name is now outdated.Nor does the term "rare" refer to their abundance, because although they are not usually concentrated in deposits that can be exploited (so their mines are few), even the less abundant elements in this group are much more common than gold. What are "critical" or transition minerals used for? What technologies are based on them?The uses of transition minerals in the technological development of renewable energy sources are diverse:Solar technologies: bauxite, cadmium, tin, germanium, gallium, indium, selenium, silicon, tellurium, zinc.Electrical installations: copper.Wind energy: bauxite, copper, chromium, manganese, molybdenum, rare earths, zinc.Energy storage: bauxite, cobalt, copper, graphite, lithium, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, rare earths, titanium.Batteries: cobalt, graphite, lithium, manganese, nickel, rare earths. In addition, they are used in a variety of modern technologies, for example in the manufacture of displays, cell phones, computer hard drives and LED lights, among others. Where are "critical" or transition minerals found?The geography of transition minerals is broad, ranging from China to Canada, from the United States to Australia. But their extraction has been concentrated in countries of the global south.Several Latin American countries are among the top producers of various transition minerals. These materials are found in complex areas rich in biological and cultural diversity, such as the Amazon and the Andean wetlands.Argentina: lithiumBrazil: aluminum, bauxite, lithium, manganese, rare earths, titaniumBolivia: lithiumChile: copper, lithium, molybdenumColombia: nickelMexico: copper, tin, molybdenum, zincPeru: tin, molybdenum, zinc How do "critical" or transition minerals support the energy transition and decarbonization?Transition minerals are seen as indispensable links in the energy transition to decarbonization, i.e. the shift away from fossil energy sources.But the global interest in these materials also raises questions about the benefits and challenges of mining transition minerals.The issue has become so relevant that last September, the United Nations Panel on Critical Minerals for Energy Transition issued a set of recommendations and principles to ensure equitable, fair and sustainable management of these minerals.In addition, as a result of the intensification and expansion of their extraction in countries of the region, the issue was brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for the first time on November 15.In a public hearing, representatives of communities and organizations from Argentina, Bolivia, Chile and Colombia, as well as regional organizations, presented information and testimonies on the environmental and social impacts of transition mineral mining.Given the current energy transition process, it is necessary to know where the resources that will enable the technologies to achieve this transition will come from.The extraction and use of transition minerals must avoid imposing disproportionate environmental and social costs on local communities and ecosystems. *Mayela Sánchez is a digital community specialist at AIDA; David Cañas and Javier Oviedo are scientific advisors.Sources consulted:-Olivera, B., Tornel, C., Azamar, A., Minerales críticos para la transición energética. Conflictos y alternativas hacia una transformación socioecológica, Heinrich Böll Foundation Mexico City/Engenera/UAM-Unidad Xochimilco.-Science History Institute Museum & Library, “History and Future of Rare Earth Elements”.-FIMA NGO, Narratives on the extraction of critical minerals for the energy transition: Critiques from environmental and territorial justice.-Haxel, Hedrick & Orris, “Rare Earth-Elements. Critical Resources for High Technology,” 2005.-USGS 2014, “The Rare-Earth elements. Vital to modern technology and lifestyle”, 2014.-Final Report for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Thematic Hearing: Minerals for Energy Transition and its Impact on Human Rights in the Americas, 2024. 

Sebastián Abad Jara

Erina Batista

Jessica Solórzano

Santiago Piñeros

Isabela Feijó