Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition: Interconnected Risks

A recently published analysis of global Energy Transition Minerals (ETMs) and Metals finds that “54% of projects are located on or nearby Indigenous peoples’ lands, with 29% of these projects on or near lands over which Indigenous peoples are recognized as managing or exercising some form of control or influence over land for the purposes of conservation.” For Lithium (85%) and Manganese (75%), the percentages are even higher.

The vast majority of projects proximate to Indigenous lands are also in geographic areas facing water scarcity, conflict risk and food insecurity.

“Investors and creditors are systematically underestimating the correlated risks that inattentiveness to Indigenous peoples’ rights poses across their ‘green’ or ‘transition’ portfolios.”

In the United States, MSCI reports that 79% of Lithium reserves, 97% Nickel reserves, 89% of Copper reserves, and 68% of Cobalt reserves are within 35 miles of Indigenous lands.

While some might argue that this overlap is an economic opportunity for Indigenous populations to prosper from the development of minerals vital to the energy transition, the historical record raises a cautionary flag.

Mining and other large-scale infrastructure projects proximate to Indigenous lands often fail to promote peace positive development and leave important environmental damage. Rapid infusions of new capital and haste in development by companies with limited experience are likely to accentuate negative social, economic, and environmental impacts.

At Wharton Impact, we have conducted a series of analyses highlighting the material risks associated with such projects, particularly when developed in proximity to Indigenous peoples or other groups with long-standing historical grievances against their national governments.

Download the Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition Primer to understand the risks associated with mineral development and how stakeholder engagement can improve project outcomes.