Category: Academic Analysis

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Philippe Le Billon, Professor, Geography Department and School of Public Policy & Global Affairs, University of British Columbia

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has dubbed COP30 the forest COP. Taking place in Belém, a large urban centre in the Amazon, this choice signals a welcome shift from the capital cities of petro-states to the heart of the world’s most bio-diverse rainforest.

Yet, even as Belém hosts global climate negotiators, the Amazon and its coastline are under renewed pressure. While the spotlight is on protecting trees, new oil concessions are being awarded to keep rigs pumping.

On Nov. 11, dozens of Indigenous protesters forced their way into the COP30 venue demanding an end to industrial development in the Amazon. Indigenous leaders attending COP30 are demanding more say in how forests are managed.

Amid this tension, a new financial initiative has emerged as the potential solution: the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF). Managed by the World Bank as a multilateral trust fund, it would mobilize US$125 billion from public and private investors to reward forested countries for keeping their forests standing — forever.

The pitch is seductive — save forests, earn profits and mitigate climate change all at once. But the proposal raises two questions that demand scrutiny: Will this scheme actually make a major difference for the climate, and how will it impact communities who live in forests?

Read more:
From the Amazon, Indigenous Peoples offer new compass to navigate climate change

Protecting trees

The first question is easier to tackle. Yes, tropical forests store immense amounts of carbon so protecting them is vital. But this contribution is largely contingent on keeping global temperature below 2 C and is dwarfed by the emissions risked if fossil fuels buried beneath those same forests are extracted and burned.

Out of the 74 countries with TFFF-qualifying forests, 68 countries have fossil fuel deposits within them. In total, according to a study by the NGO Leave It In The Ground, there would be some 317 billion tonnes of potential carbon dioxide emissions from recoverable reserves and more than 4.6 trillion tonnes if all deposits were exploited.

Nearly all of it is concentrated in just three countries: China, India and Indonesia. To be truly effective, forest protection must come with a firm commitment: no fossil fuel extraction underneath.

To be equitable, a similar scheme must cover non-TFFF countries, and in particular those with boreal forests covering major fossil fuel deposits, namely in Canada and Russia.

That means prioritizing forests located above fossil fuel reserves and ensuring they remain completely off-limits to exploitation.

For this to happen, countries must make binding commitments, investors must accept lower-risk but longer-term returns and local communities must hold forest tenure rights that cannot be overridden by state ownership of subsoil resources. It’s a tall order — but without such a framework, the “forever forest” concept risks becoming just another limited climate solution.

The term forever forests evokes the advertising slogan of diamond company De Beers — “A Diamond is forever” — and reveals a similar logic: to turn nature into financial assets. A more fitting concept might be what fisheries economist Rashid Sumaila would call the infinity forest — a forest that, like fish stocks, is renewable when soundly managed as a common good.

Many of the world’s forests are not untouched wildernesses but co-created landscapes, shaped through millennia of Indigenous and local stewardship. The Amazon, for instance, is a complex social biome, nurtured through practices such as controlled burning, seed dispersal and farming.

While not all traditional practices are benign, archaeological and ecological evidence shows that many Indigenous and peasant communities have managed forests sustainably — often more effectively than state-led conservation programs and with major implications for biodiversity protection.

In fact, many studies show that biodiversity conservation is more effective in territories governed by Indigenous peoples than in state-managed protected areas.

A financial trap for forest communities

Beyond its likely ineffectiveness for the climate, the TFFF could also have devastating consequences for forest communities. Under Brazil’s current proposal, countries would receive around US$4 for every hectare of protected forest, with 80 cents trickling down to local communities.

But they would be fined US$400 per hectare for any deforestation. This creates a dangerous dynamic: states will crack down on small-scale forest use by local people while giving free rein to industries — such as oil — that generate far higher returns.

In effect, the scheme risks criminalizing traditional forest practices — from small-scale clearing to hunting or gathering — that have sustained these ecosystems for centuries.

As governments seek to avoid penalties, forest communities could face exclusion, forced resettlement or even violence, echoing a long history of displacement caused by “conservation” projects and carbon offset schemes such as REDD+.

Financializing the forest’s future

This brings us to the Indigenous and forest defenders who disrupted COP30 events on Nov. 11. Their protest highlighted the real danger behind the TFFF: the financialization of Indigenous territories.

The scheme does nothing to prevent oil and gas extraction beneath forest lands. What were once commons could become commodities promising investors lucrative returns.

In short, “forever forests” may deliver forever profits — not so much for the people who protect them as for those who exploit their value. This is, bluntly, a new form of green colonialism — a profitable appropriation of the forest’s future.

If the TFFF goes ahead, it must first grant some degree of self-government to Indigenous forest communities — as Colombia recently did — and explicitly prohibit fossil fuel extraction in protected forests.

Investors should pay a premium for forests covering fossil fuel reserves, and both state and community rights must be rebalanced to make no-go zones truly binding. In this way, “forever forests” can become territories of life — not assets of accumulation.

Ultimately, no financial mechanism will save the world’s forests unless it also saves the people who depend on them, and the carbon that must remain buried beneath.

The path to a livable planet runs not through markets or bonds, but through justice: recognition of forest community stewardship and a global commitment to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Philippe Le Billon receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

– ref. COP30: Governments must empower forest communities to keep fossil fuels underground – https://theconversation.com/cop30-governments-must-empower-forest-communities-to-keep-fossil-fuels-underground-269686

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Bonnie Campbell, Professeure émérite en économie politique. Département de science politique de l’Université du Québec à Montréal., Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)

Gold mining operations recently restarted at the Loulo-Gounkoto complex in western Mali after being shut down for several months. In January, the Malian government started blocking exports from the mine owned by Canada-based Barrick Mining (formerly called Barrick Gold).

The government blocked exports and took control of three tonnes of bullion following a dispute with Barrick Mining over alleged unpaid taxes.

This particular case is too complex to be discussed here. But disputes over revenue distribution raise important questions about how mineral-rich countries can benefit from their natural resources.

According to the International Monetary Fund, tax avoidance by multinational mining companies costs African countries between US$470 million and US$730 million per year in tax income.

Generating government revenue through natural resource taxation is critically important for sub-Saharan African countries seeking to improve infrastructure, health services and meet social development goals.

A variety of reasons explain why mineral-rich countries in sub-Saharan Africa are not profiting appropriately from their mineral wealth.

Power imbalances, unfavourable revenues

The Intergovernmental Forum on Mining and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have identified different obstacles to mining revenue collection including faulty legislation, abusive transfer pricing and other artificial profit-shifting.

In addition, fiscal incentives commonly provided to attract mining investment, such as significantly lowering tax and royalty rates, rarely prove to be worth the loss in government revenue.

These excessive concessions to foreign mining companies have led to widespread discontent, poverty and underdevelopment in Africa, despite abundant mineral wealth. This situation has been condemned by leaders across the continent.

In response, the African Union’s African Mining Vision and the policies it has inspired, notably the reform of mining codes, are attempts to ensure a more lasting contribution of the continent’s mineral resources.

Yet the power imbalances between foreign companies and African governments remain very much in place and shape negotiations around mining codes, contracts and practices.

While situations vary from country to country, sector to sector and site to site, research has sought to identify key obstacles to increased State mining revenue.

The unequal influence in negotiations that favours mining companies leads to numerous irregularities. Examples include prolonging stability clauses despite regulatory reforms and prioritizing mining contracts over broader national regulatory frameworks.

At the international level, African states are hindered from implementing policies that benefit local communities due to international trade regime practices, tariff import privileges and bilateral conventions that act as powerful deterrents.

Mali’s mining code

In Mali, the mining sector is a key part of the economy. In 2022, the sector contributed 9.2 per cent of GDP, 76.5 per cent of export revenue and 34.8 per cent of state revenue.

As is the case elsewhere on the continent, new Malian mining legislation aims to help rectify the legacy of environmental damage and disappointing mining revenue. Mali’s 2023 mining code reflects reforms to improve national benefits from the sector similar to measures in Tanzania, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Such reforms included increased state ownership requirements (typically 10-30 per cent), higher royalty and tax rates, local content and employment requirements, greater environmental and social responsibility provisions and enhanced community development obligations.

The 2023 code aims to strengthen Mali’s sovereignty over its resources and bring about a more equitable distribution of the benefits.

The fiscal regime has been reformed so that, among other measures, certain tax exemptions that mining companies received were abolished. Similarly, the new code puts an end to the fiscal concession of 25 per cent for a period of 15 years permitted by former codes. The new code introduces a royalty on production of 10 per cent for that exceeding the quantity projected.

In addition, several funds were created to respond to the needs of the sector and favour social inclusion.

Another important innovation is the law concerning local content in the mining sector. This law aims to encourage the participation of national enterprises and workers in the mining sector.

As occurs in other mineral-rich countries, Mali has faced strong pushback, particularly from the largest and most powerful companies. This has led to an escalation of conflict rather than negotiated solutions.

Significantly, several companies have reached agreements with the Malian government, such as Robex Resources. The U.K.-based Endeavour Mining has negotiated terms with the government to operate under the new mining code.

Two additional gold producers have also signed agreements to operate under the new mining code: Faboula Gold and Bagama Mining.

These projects, while less capital-intensive than others, illustrate the possibility of successful initiatives under the new code. They also provide important employment opportunities in rural areas.

Greater resource sovereignty

Some industry analysts have criticized mineral-rich countries for adopting a “resource nationalism” approach. However, research shows that well-managed, transparent and stable mining revenue in Mali and Senegal could help improve access to health care and social services.

Exercising greater sovereignty over natural resources to ensure the well-being of a country’s population might better be commended as responsible resource nationalism.

There are serious military and security threats facing Mali and its neighbours. By providing revenue and employment, the mining industry can play a key role in addressing these insecurities.

This role involves respecting national regulations and paying a fair share of tax revenue. Ultimately, the industry’s profitability is very much tied to the social stability of the country and the health, social and economic welfare of its people.

Bonnie Campbell has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the International Development Research Centre of Canada.

Moussa Doumbo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why Africa’s mineral-rich countries are not reaping the rewards of their wealth – https://theconversation.com/why-africas-mineral-rich-countries-are-not-reaping-the-rewards-of-their-wealth-262424

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tamara Krawchenko, Associate Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria

Canada and Ontario are accelerating efforts to attract global investment and speed up approvals for new mining projects.

Ontario’s government has introduced new policies aimed at attracting investors and accelerate project timelines. Central to this strategy are laws like Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act, and Bill 71, the Building More Mines Act.

The surge in global demand for “critical minerals” such as nickel, lithium and cobalt — essential inputs for electric vehicles and clean energy technologies — has positioned mining as a cornerstone of energy transition strategies. Northern Ontario, endowed with vast mineral resources, has become a focal point in Canada’s emerging green economy.

Yet this potential is shadowed by the legacy of “sacrifice zones” — regions where the environmental and social costs of mining have fallen heavily on Anishinaabe, Cree and Oji-Cree Nations and communities, while most benefits have accrued elsewhere.

How governments advance Indigenous inclusion, share prosperity with First Nations and create greater project certainty will depend on principles of respectful partnership, shared rewards and risks and long-term stewardship.

Environmental and Indigenous rights concerns

Canada’s accelerated approach to mining raises major concerns for both the environment and Indigenous rights.

The Hudson Bay Lowlands, for example, are one of the world’s largest carbon sinks and disturbances there could release vast amounts of greenhouse gases. Building mines, roads and energy lines in these sensitive ecosystems threatens biodiversity, water systems and the traditional livelihoods of First Nations communities.

Ontario’s digitized “claim-staking” system allows companies to register mining claims instantly without prior consultation. In some cases, exploration occurs on lands still under legal negotiation or where Indigenous title is unresolved.

Many First Nations have voiced frustration that the current consultation process is too brief and procedural to meet constitutional or treaty obligations.

The Chiefs of Ontario have called for a pause on new mining claims and deeper reforms to ensure that any future developments align with Indigenous consent.

A rights-based approach to mining

A recent OECD report outlines both the opportunities and challenges that rising mineral demand brings to First Nations and local communities in Northern Ontario. The report also lays out a practical road map for a more sustainable mining sector.

As contributing authors, we accompanied the OECD process of extensive interviews and roundtables with First Nations leaders, mining companies, policymakers and community organizations across the region.

We sought to understand on-the-ground realities and to identify ways to align economic development with Indigenous rights and community well-being.

From the recommendations of the report, we interpret three key actions for a rights-based territorial development approach that promotes responsible mining while upholding Indigenous rights.

3 key actions

1. Investing in communities

Many First Nations need major investments in water, housing, infrastructure, health and social supports to meet basic human rights. Without addressing these foundational needs, asymmetrical development will only deepen inequalities between national interests and wealth creation. It is very hard to think about mining development when basic needs are not being met.

2. Gaining Indigenous consent

Following the lead of British Columbia and the Northwest Territories in legally committing to implement UNDRIP (the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), Ontario should build on existing efforts to provide a formal mechanism for guiding companies towards securing free, prior and informed consent and align provincial legislation with UNDRIP.

Indigenous rights-holders must be properly informed, meaningfully consulted and give their consent before any projects go forward. This consent should apply throughout the entire project life cycle, from exploration and feasibility studies to mine closure and land restoration.

This should also pertain to “brownfield” sites (existing mines) and patented lands, some of which are currently exempt from consultation under Ontario’s Mining Act. While major changes to a mine site that could negatively affect Indigenous rights will trigger the duty to consult, smaller changes may not and this is decided on a case-by-case basis. This can create grey areas and a lack of legal levers for communities to renegotiate when amendments are made to mining projects.

3. Capital, equity ownership and royalty frameworks

To move beyond one-time compensation agreements, some First Nations may be interested in securing equity stakes in mining ventures, sharing both risks and rewards through access to capital.

When First Nations participate as co-investors, it signifies that the project has undergone a free, prior and informed consent processes, meaning potential legal, reputational and social risks — including community opposition or court challenges — are significantly minimized.

Indigenous co-investment typically requires the establishment of strong governance mechanisms, including clear arrangements for shared decision-making, benefit sharing, formal agreement-creation and high environmental and social standards, all of which enhance a project’s reputation for responsible operation.

Direct resource revenue-sharing agreements are another option. The Ontario government has already signed such agreements with some First Nations and Tribal Councils. This ensures equity among participating First Nations.

Building a stronger, more prosperous Ontario

The future of mining in northern Ontario sits at a crossroads. Governments want to move quickly to capitalize on mineral demand, but unless this growth is tied to consent (real engagement), equity and stewardship, it risks reproducing past injustices. This is unacceptable risk to all parties.

True prosperity means development that upholds the rights of First Nations, protects their ecosystems and ensures communities share in the benefits.

If implemented, these priorities — consent, ownership and stewardship — could transform the region from a site of resource extraction into a model of partnership and resilience. It means a different kind of mining anchored in respect and sustainability.

The article was co-authored by Andres Sanabria, Coordinator of the OECD Mining Regions and Cities Initiative and Bridget Donovan, Policy Analyst at the OECD.

Tamara Krawchenko consults for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and was a contributing author to the Mining Regions and Cities in Northern Ontario, Canada study. She is a Visiting Scholar with the Institue for Research on Public Policy and a board member of Ecotrust Canada.

Darren Godwell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The path to responsible mining in northern Ontario starts with Indigenous consent – https://theconversation.com/the-path-to-responsible-mining-in-northern-ontario-starts-with-indigenous-consent-267935