This work is authored by Rafael Giovanelli, a student from FGV São Paulo

Sustainable development aims to achieve human well-being, to be enjoyed in a healthy environment by present and future generations. Its goals are to protect Nature and reach social justice, eliminating the obscene inequalities that relegate almost half of the world population to live below poverty line. The framework has been set by the Rio Declaration, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
As Dernbach and Cheever explained, it is based on the idea of equity, both intergenerational and within the current generation. It is supported by three principles: precautionary approach; polluters-pay principle; and public participation. And, it has two dimensions: a procedural (to consider environmental and social effects of decisions – environmental assessment process is an example), and a substantive (to achieve specific environmental and social goals – for instance, clean air and water). A center piece of the framework is the integration of environmental and economic considerations in decision-making processes.

Sustainable development framework still provides relevant guidance for policy making. Poverty and inequality are major global challenges. With the emergence of the triple planetary crisis, governments and companies are on the clock to reinvent the economy. Threats to the environment – and to the human right to a healthy environment– go beyond climate change, encompassing biodiversity loss and pollution. To overcome these challenges, humankind need to tackle them altogether.

It does not make sense – and it is not possible – to mitigate climate change at the expenses of biodiversity. As climate change, the impacts of biodiversity loss for humankind and the economy are also disruptive. Neither climate mitigation should justify violations of human rights, especially in developing countries – otherwise, climate mitigation would be a force to increase inequalities. Thus, mitigation policies must protect biodiversity and implement human rights, all at once. In other terms, they need to be formulated within the sustainable development framework.

Take energy transition as example. As the International Energy Agency have put, efforts to reduce emissions depend on the deployment of a wide range of clean energy technologies, many of which rely on critical minerals. But, today, “supply and investment plans for critical minerals fall short of what is needed to transform the energy sector, raising the risk of delayed or more expensive energy transitions”. If climate mitigation is taken seriously, global demand for those minerals is likely to increase.

What will happen, then, to countries that have the potential to become global suppliers? Will they craft their markets, reforming laws, and regulations, to boost the mining sector? Will procedural rules be weakened to make it easier to implement mining projects, turning environmental assessments less accurate? Will affected communities take part in the decision- making process? Will substantial goals be considered besides reducing greenhouse gas emissions, such as protecting biodiversity, guaranteeing the quality of air and water, and reducing inequalities?
Answers will vary depending on political and legal struggles. Recent events in Latin America may give a hint of what to expect. Chile and Argentina are among the 5 biggest producers of lithium. Projects in these countries are deemed to violate prior consultation rights of Indigenous Peoples, among others. In Chile, the lithium industry may even be exhausting water resources of the Atacama Desert.

Brazil has relevant reserves of critical minerals. An important part of them is located in the Amazon, which is one of the most biodiverse regions in the planet, also housing 98,25% of Indigenous Peoples’ Lands of the country.
During Bolsonaro Administration, Brazilian Federal Government tried to liberate mining activities inside Indigenous Lands. Bill 191/2020 faced fierce resistance from grassroots movements. And several United Nations Special Rapporteurs expressed “concern regarding the adverse impact this draft legislation, if adopted, would have on the enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life; health; safe drinking water and sanitation; housing; a clean, healthy and sustainable environment; and the rights of indigenous peoples”.

Developing clean technologies for the energy transition is vital to mitigate climate change. However, inequalities and environmental degradation can increase depending on how critical minerals are supplied. That is why climate mitigation policies need to be formulated within the sustainable development framework. They need to respect the precautionary approach, the polluters-pay principle, and the rights of public participation. Under the procedure dimension of the framework, they must consistently integrate environmental and socioeconomic considerations; under the substantial dimension, they must protect biodiversity, take care of pollution, and promote social justice. This is the only path to a just energy transition.