The horrific toll of the war in the eastern DRC has put a global spotlight on the deadly role of “critical minerals” in fueling violence and displacement. Backed by Rwanda, the M23 militia has seized key mines and cities, killing thousands, committing widespread sexual violence, and displacing millions. These atrocities are deeply tied to the global demand for minerals like lithium, tin, coltan, and tungsten.

Essential to electronics and so-called “green” technologies, these minerals are coveted by countries and corporations. Under the Trump administration, the US is now pushing for mining deals in DRC – similar to the recently announced deal with war-torn Ukraine to access its cache of minerals. 

Amidst this frenzy, the World Bank has emerged as a key player pushing reforms in land tenure to facilitate access to land for mining. With its annual Land Conference currently underway in Washington D.C., the Bank has already announced billions of dollars for land programs under the guise of climate action. It argues that it is necessary to formalize land rights so that local communities can benefit from mining projects. But is the Bank’s agenda really about ensuring fair benefits for the people?

What’s Really Driving Mineral Demand?

According to the Bank, three billion tons of minerals and metals will be needed to “deploy wind, solar and geothermal power, as well as energy storage, for achieving a below 2°C future.” As a result, demand for key transition minerals – including graphite, lithium, and cobalt – “could increase by nearly 500 [percent] by 2050.” A closer examination, however, reveals that green energy is not driving the increase in demand.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that total demand for graphite, lithium, and cobalt – from all industries, not just the green tech – will rise by an average of around 207 percent by 2050 if the world reaches net-zero¹ by then. Crucially, demand for these minerals would be created either by sectors that are irrelevant to the green transition (including industries such as aerospace, defense, and electronics) or by electric vehicles (EVs).² In fact, the IEA suggests that in a net-zero by 2050 scenario, green energy would only account for 10.7 percent of the demand for graphite, cobalt and lithium, while EVs would account for 41.79 percent and other uses unrelated to the green transition would account for the remaining 47.5 percent.

The projected mineral demand for EVs also assumes a future dominated by private car ownership, but this could be dramatically reduced through better policies – like expanding public transit, car-sharing, and walkable cities – as well as alternative energy storage methods.³ Even so, the World Bank maintains that expanding mining constitutes a “tremendous economic opportunity” and that it is critical to formalize land rights so it is done “well and responsibly.” 

Indigenous Lands in the Crosshairs for Mining

Approximately 69 percent of current transition mineral projects are on or near land that qualifies as Indigenous Peoples’ or peasant land in the Global South. The Bank’s VP for Infrastructure, Guangzhe Chen, explains the challenge this overlap presents: “it’s estimated that at most half of Indigenous Peoples’ land rights are formally recognized, making it difficult to ensure that legitimate landholders are identified and included in investment planning and benefits.” To solve this challenge, governments are being pushed by the Bank to formalize land rights in areas that will need to be accessed for mining. These efforts are a part of the institution’s multi-billion-dollar Global Program on Land Tenure Security and Land Access for Climate Goals – examined in the Oakland Institute’s Climatewash report, released last week.

While the Bank acknowledges that increased mining will impact Indigenous communities, it also openly admits that formalizing land rights is merely a step towards accessing transition minerals. Despite its rhetoric about securing land rights, the Bank assumes that the landholders will accept mining on their lands – completely ignoring they might oppose the environmental destruction, disruptions to livelihoods, and damage to potential areas of cultural significance that this entails. The Bank’s justification – focused on the questionable need to urgently access these minerals to respond to climate change – leaves no room for communities to deny mining on their lands. 

The 2022 IPCC report specifically warned about the severe environmental impacts of mining for transition minerals and that “often there are few if any redistributive benefits for communities in regions where extraction takes place.” Instead of local development, the extraction of strategic minerals has been linked to violence, human rights abuses, and conflict – as seen in the DRC, where laborers endure brutal conditions and suffer serious health impacts for extremely low pay. 

In 2019, the Bank launched the Climate Smart Mining Initiative (CSM) as a public private partnership to help “resource-rich developing countries benefit from the increasing demand for minerals and metals, while ensuring the mining sector is managed in a way that minimizes the environmental and climate footprint.” The Initiative purports to “support the sustainable extraction and processing of minerals and metals to secure supply for clean energy technologies mineral traceability,” but serious limitations remain. Attempts to trace minerals in countries impacted by conflict like DRC are still extremely ineffective. A study cited by the IPCC concluded that these traceability schemes “may be impossible to fully enforce in practice, and could in the extreme merely become an exercise in public relations rather than improved governance and outcomes for miners.”

The close involvement of two of the world’s largest mining companies – Rio Tinto and Anglo American – in developing the CSM Initiative reinforces these concerns. Both corporate behemoths have a decades-long track record of alleged human rights and environmental abuses across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. For millions of people around the world impacted by the operations of Rio Tinto and Anglo America, this is a clear case of the fox developing the guidelines to protect the henhouse. 

The Bank’s true commitment to protecting Indigenous and local communities impacted by the transition mineral boom is further questioned by its financial backing of mining operations with complete disregard for the well-being of local communities. For example, the IFC’s US$180 million lithium mine project in Argentina – the fastest growing lithium producing country – has come under fire for ignoring opposition from Indigenous communities. Instead of ensuring that the government and companies recognize and protect the land rights of communities living in the mining areas, the Bank is directly financing projects that trample on the safeguards supposedly enshrined by the CSM Initiative. 

The Right to Say “No” to “Sustainable” Mining

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) enshrines the right of Indigenous communities “to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources,” and requires states to obtain their Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for any project that will affect their lands. In practice, however, these protections are often subverted by governments eager to access minerals. 

In April 2024 at the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, a broad coalition of Indigenous representatives from 35 countries issued a declaration stating: 

“…The current trajectory of the energy transition fails to meet the criteria of justice, social equity and environmental sustainability, particularly from the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples’ rights and well-being…We are alarmed by the grave consequences of mining and deployment of renewable energy development in our territories without our FPIC, violating our rights to self-determination and to our lands, territories, and resources.”

To reflect genuine consent, FPIC must include the right for communities to say “No” to mining projects on their lands. While the Bank claims to be “securing” land rights, in practice it is mining companies and not the communities – who actually benefit from these land tenure reforms. Until the Bank demonstrates that it will truly support communities’ right of refusal, plans to formalize land rights are merely a precursor to legally opening lands for exploitation. Instead of using land reform as a smokescreen for mining expansion, the Bank should support solutions that minimize the need for mining and stop funding projects that undermine the rights of local communities.