Taking stock – opportunities for action in 2025 transcript
Host [00:00] You're listening to Make Change Happen, the podcast from IIED that offers insights on issues affecting the path towards a fairer, more sustainable world.
Simon Cullen [00:15] Hello and welcome to the Make Change Happen podcast from the International Institute for Environment and Development. My name is Simon Cullen. I'm the press and PR manager at IIED, and joining me on the episode is IIED's director of strategic impact, Lindlyn Moma. Welcome to the podcast, Lindlyn.
Lindlyn Moma [00:33] Thank you for having me, Simon.
Simon Cullen [00:35] Now, given this is your first podcast, how about you give the listeners a quick introduction to yourself?
Lindlyn Moma [00:40] So I joined IIED about a few months ago, and I'm so pleased to have joined in the role of director of strategic impact. I bring with me experience from the environmental justice sector. I would call myself a human rights and environment advocate and scholar, and my work has really focused on mining, energy transition and climate justice. So really looking forward to contributing to this conversation.
Simon Cullen [01:05] Excellent. Well, on this episode, as you mentioned, we're going to be taking a look back at some of the big issues we've covered during the past 12 months – critical minerals, climate action, international finance and, of course, how to make sure Indigenous Peoples and local communities get a voice at the decision-making table. But we also want to look ahead to the year before us and consider, what are the big events we should be looking forward to in 2025. And so, Lindlyn, I'm grateful that you're going to be my guide on this conversation.
So let's start with critical minerals. Obviously they're a key component of this rapid shift towards clean energy – whether we're talking about battery storage, wind turbines, electric cars. And earlier this year the Make Change Happen podcast shone a spotlight on critical minerals and this clean energy pathway. And we looked at some of the huge potential these minerals have in helping shift the world away from fossil fuels and the economic potential they have for mineral-rich countries. So let's take a quick listen to a snippet of that earlier podcast. We're going to hear from IIED senior researcher Rose Mosi, who appeared on that episode.
Rose Mosi [02:11] The dilemma of critical minerals is seen in the dichotomy between the benefits that critical minerals bring to the energy transition and the risks of mining critical minerals for the producing countries. Now, critical minerals are essential for developing clean-energy technologies that are essential for the energy transition. Critical minerals like lithium, cobalt, copper, amongst others, are usually mined by a small number of countries, often in the global South. Many of these countries are looking to use the critical mineral boom to improve the economic outlook of their countries.
Now, mining is not devoid of risks. There is governance, social and environmental risks that come with mining. In order for countries to benefit from critical minerals, they need to have a proper plan and governance system in place. Otherwise these countries, they are less likely to see economic growth, they are likely to have poor democracy, less likely to see development and of course have fewer natural resources as some of it will have been taken out in the form of critical minerals.
Secondly, mining has negative environmental, social and health impacts. Environmental impacts come due to the invasive mining methods; social impacts are seen in the livelihoods of the communities that live around the mine or are displaced to make way for the mine. And health impacts are seen in the communities as well, due to the exposure to dust, heavy metals, amongst other elements that can cause health challenges. Thirdly, these countries too need to transition and therefore there’s a need to have a plan for producing countries to use some of their minerals for their own energy transition.
[Music]
Simon Cullen [03:56] That was IIED senior researcher Rose Mosi speaking in that earlier podcast. Lindlyn, you've got a lot of experience in critical minerals, so I'm particularly interested to hear your thoughts on some of the issues Rose raised there.
Lindlyn Moma [04:06] This year the UN Secretary-General produced a special report on critical minerals that highlighted some of the points that Rose has made. It's really important that as the world moves forward into renewable energy the role of critical minerals – which is really central to renewable and clean energy production – is taken more seriously. But more so the role of communities and people at the frontline of where these critical minerals are dug up, their rights have to be respected.
Going in into what the UN Secretary-General said, he has highlighted some of the points that Rose made. For example, human and environmental rights of communities must be upheld. And again, this is really around the integrity of the planet. It needs to be safeguarded, even as we dig up for critical minerals for a very much-needed energy transition. Looking at equity and justice must underpin the mineral value chain and this must be ensured to show that clean energy production does not leave communities in resource-rich countries worse off than they were.
Simon Cullen [05:09] OK, so just picking up on what the UN Secretary-General put out, he did put out these recommendations. I noticed though that they're framed as guiding principles because, of course, these are essentially voluntary. So is that going to get us to where we need to go in this area?
Lindlyn Moma [05:25] Well, the thing is, they are framed as guiding principles, and there are many other guiding principles that have been listed out for the critical mining sector. Much needs to be done. He's called for, you know, countries to cooperate around looking at critical minerals value chains, including investment in responsible mining projects and development of new technologies. So there's a whole gamut of responsibilities there that countries need to take up.
Simon Cullen [05:50] Where do we go to now? In 2025 are there key moments that we should be looking towards, where we might see some further action in this space?
Lindlyn Moma [06:00] The momentum is building and I'm sure with the UN Secretary-General's report we see this peak in that. There's been also reports from the International Energy Agency around the critical minerals outlook. I think right now is the time to start implementing all these principles and guidelines, because the world is definitely in need of a shift from dirty energy. The momentum has built and now we need to put in that action.
You have other bodies like the AU [African Union] who have an African mining vision in place, and obviously that mining vision does apply to critical minerals. They need to implement that now. You have countries like South Africa, Indonesia, Senegal and Vietnam who have all just energy transition platforms or partnerships that are looking at taking on responsible just energy transitions, which will include critical minerals.
There's also the need for regional leadership on implementing critical minerals frameworks and policies that are coming out. We can see that already with the Zambia-DRC [Democratic Republic of Congo] partnership for battery production. Botswana government, as I mentioned, is advancing debates on governance and critical minerals with the International IDEA [International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance]. The UNFCCC has also put in frame a just transition work programme.
All of these are already in place and we need to see stronger action going forward.
Simon Cullen [07:13] OK, so we will watch this space to see what that action looks like.
[Music]
Simon Cullen [07:20] Let's turn to another topic, because early in 2024 we also did an episode on ‘hidden handbrakes’ and these are the things that are holding back climate action. They're often hidden from public view, they're the bureaucratic or political, legal, practical barriers to effective change.
So given we're talking about climate action here maybe, Lindlyn, a good place to start with all of this is COP29, the climate summit we have just had in November in Azerbaijan. Those of our listeners who are not necessarily familiar with the process, COP simply stands for the Conference of Parties. And in this context we're talking about the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
So, Lindlyn, this was meant to be the finance COP. And to be fair, a new finance deal was agreed, but it fell short, didn't it, of what many countries were saying is needed. So how should we think of the COP, was it a failure? Should we celebrate the fact that there was a deal agreed?
Lindlyn Moma [08:12] To be fair I think COP29 in Baku really stands as a failure to uphold the principles of equity, justice, accountability, that should underpin global climate action. It offered little in the way of meaningful outcomes for communities most affected by climate change – and, you know, these are LDCs [ least developed countries] and Small Island Development States.
And the failure to deliver adequate adaptation finance, or to address the systemic inequalities, leaves communities vulnerable. And they keep on bearing the brunt of the climate crisis that they had no hand in causing. So I would say that it didn't meet expectations in terms of being equitable, it didn't meet expectations of justice and accountability.
Again, the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance was a critical opportunity to centre the rights and needs of frontline communities. It produced big promises, insufficient funding, and mechanisms that failed to prioritise local priorities. Again, COP29 fell short in addressing critical issues of fossil fuel phase-outs: an omission that exacerbates the climate crisis and puts us closer to reaching and even surpassing 1.5 degrees, to be honest with you. It's really, I would say, troubling, that we keep on moving on from one COP to another and seeing gaps in the system.
Simon Cullen [09:29] I'm curious to know why you think that's happening. Why are we seeing COP after COP failing to deliver what we need?
Lindlyn Moma [09:35] I think you would look at the fractured nature of geopolitics, the deep divisions between what we would say Majority World countries and the global North. And these divisions keep on eroding trust and cooperation. Wealthy nations failed to meet up on their promises. The US$100 billion climate fund target is not being reached. There's a lot of frustration among developing countries.
That's also weak leadership and ambition. We saw many leaders, global North leaders, who did not come to COP. And this shows a lack of leadership and ambition, and just a lack of taking COP seriously. The climate financing gaps are also a recognition that there's no commitment to dispersing funds, especially for adaptation, loss and damage. This remains very underdeveloped: wealthy nations keep on falling short of their promises.
And, again, there's not enough focus on equity and justice. We need to see more voices of the communities at the frontline being lifted up and lift up the barriers that are preventing locally led adaptation. There's generally a very slow progress on multilateralism at this moment
Simon Cullen [10:41] Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Obviously, after COP29 comes COP30: that's going to be in 2025 in Brazil. But before we look ahead to that, there was another big COP this year – it wasn't a climate COP, but a biodiversity COP in Colombia. Nicola Sorsby is an IIED researcher who works in that field and was in Colombia for the summit. Let's hear her reflections on how that meeting went.
Nicola Sorsby [11:05] So I'm going to talk a bit about COP16, which is the biodiversity COP, which sits under the Convention of Biological Diversity, or the CBD, which happened this year in Cali in Colombia in October. So this COP expected to follow up on progress against the historic global biodiversity framework, which is the policy agreement which was agreed two years ago at the last COP in Montreal. And this was really the agreement which was termed ‘the Paris Agreement for nature’, since it lays out policy targets to chart the course of nature action over the next 10 years.
So what we actually saw from this COP was some mixed outcomes, since no decisions were reached on the two main focus areas. So, no decision was made on how to deliver finance for nature through a potential new biodiversity fund, nor was there any agreement on the monitoring framework, which will outline how we will monitor progress against the policy targets. So these two key issues have been pushed down the road into early 2025 or even beyond. There were also weak financial pledges made to the existing biodiversity fund, which were far off the scale needed to meet the targets which we set by 2030. And only 44 out of 192 parties to the CBD submitted their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, or their NBSAPs.
However, there were two really positive outcomes in other areas. There was an agreement on the Cali Fund. So this is a fund which will collect contributions from companies who profit from the use of genetic information from biodiversity, such as pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies, cosmetic companies. And the idea is that the fund will channel those funds back to the countries and territories, and indeed the local people, who are managing the lands where this biodiversity is found.
And the second outcome was, a really historic decision was made on the establishment of the permanent subsidiary body on issues relating to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It’s really significant since it elevates Indigenous issues to the same level as the existing subsidiary body on technical and scientific knowledge.
So in terms of what's to come next, I think there's really an urgency for parties to reconvene to reach a solution on finance and monitoring. And we really need to see greater commitment from countries to submit strong and ambitious NBSAPs. And this coming year in particular, we really must align action on nature from the CBD process with what is going on in the climate change negotiations. Especially next year in Belém, COP30 is set to be the ‘nature COP’, and we need to see a strong moment on nature now in order to set the stage for really strong joint outcomes on both climate and nature next year.
[Music]
Simon Cullen [13:35] Lindlyn, just picking up on some of the points that Nicola raised there: a failure in finance again, although she did highlight some positive developments that we saw. What are your thoughts on where we’re at with the biodiversity COP
Lindlyn Moma [13:46] I largely agree with what Nicola said there around the biodiversity COP. We do need to celebrate the outcomes for Indigenous Peoples and local communities in strengthening their contribution to biodiversity conservation. I think also the Cali Fund is a major milestone. However, there are considerable failures in this COP because it did, again, fail to provide substantial funding for biodiversity conservation, which developed nations need to actually put forward but are blocking the proposal from going forward.
I think also the political gridlock which we've seen happen in multiple platforms like this keeps on happening and it came out quite clearly in the biodiversity COP where major countries like the EU [European Union] and Japan also blocked proposals for how the funds should be established, really frustrating developing nations and stalling negotiations.
Simon Cullen [14:32] And one thing Nicola raised is this idea of more closely aligning biodiversity finance and climate finance. And obviously these COP processes happen separately. Just interested in your thoughts on that, should there be a movement to bring these closer together? What do, what do you think?
Lindlyn Moma [14:47] This should definitely be aligned. The biodiversity and climate COP must address the triple crisis that we face of climate change, nature loss, inequality. And we must have an integrated approach to dealing with this crisis that we face. You know, we must align ambition across all agendas.
The climate COP, for example, focuses on reducing emissions and limiting global temperatures rise to 1.5 [degrees], recognising that climate change is a key driver of biodiversity loss and disproportionally affects vulnerable communities. Again, the biodiversity COP supports the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, ensuring its targets – such as protecting 30% of the planet by 2030 – addresses biodiversity loss while promoting nature-based solutions to climate challenges.
Mainstreaming equity and justice must be in both COPs; both COPs must address this. Putting Indigenous Peoples and local communities, women and other marginalised groups at the heart of negotiations. The climate COP must mobilise enough finance to support mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. And the biodiversity COP must also ensure that the GBFF [Global Biodiversity Framework Fund] prioritises direct funding for nature-based solutions that deliver co-benefits of biodiversity, climate resilience and poverty reduction. So finance flow must be integrated also. And both COPS must also strengthen mechanisms for accountability and monitoring to ensure that commitments are translated into action.
[Music]
Simon Cullen [16:11] OK. Well, another big area that IIED has focused on in this past year is the need to reform how international financial systems work. And on a previous episode we heard from IIED chief economist Paul Steele, who outlined three priorities for change. They are: one, the need to ensure funding is combined with nature and climate finance – in effect, breaking down those funding silos we've just talked about. Two, the need to ensure that least developed countries contribute meaningfully to discussions. And three, the need to focus on the quality, not just the quantity of funding so that money gets to where it matters most.
And as usual, we've had the World Bank and IMF [International Monetary Fund] meetings take place this year, along with the G20 leaders meeting in November. Laura Kelly, IIED's director of shaping sustainable markets, was at a couple of those meetings and has been closely following developments. Here's her reflections on what's taken place these past 12 months.
Laura Kelly [17:07] It’s certainly been a crowded autumn of discussions on addressing the climate, nature and inequality crises. In late October we saw the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings in Washington, at the same time as the biodiversity COP was happening in Cali in Colombia. G20 leaders also met in Brazil during the second week of the climate COP. And then in early December, donor governments met in Korea to agree the replenishment of the World Bank’s most concessional financing instrument, the International Development Association – or IDA.
An obvious reflection is that these meetings need better scheduling, but there’s also a deeper issue of breaking down the silos and better linking these discussions. So, what are some of the main takeaways? The World Bank is making progress on reforms and increasing focus on impact, which is good. It’s got a new scorecard, it’s launched a new civic initiative with civil society on social innovation. But it feels like momentum is slowing.
The IMF is lagging behind. There’s some progress on debt, but we need a whole set of reforms to integrate climate and nature into IMF lending. On finance, another aspect that’s really key is the IDA replenishment. It’s really important for low-income countries, and as our research has shown, more cash is flowing out of developing countries as debt repayments than coming in at the moment. So IDA’s a lifeline. Some countries stepped up with big increases in pledges, but the overall outcome was generally disappointing.
We know about the disappointing outcomes from Baku. And in Rio, while the Brazilians really pushed on things like climate and nature and food security, there was very little concrete action. They’re really going to have to try hard as they host COP30 next year, and hope that Baku serves as a launchpad for more progress. Looking into 2025 there’s the uncertainties of a new American administration, there’s also the UN Financing for Development process. So there’s certainly been a lot more talk, but actually what we really need is a lot more action.
[Music]
Simon Cullen [19:06] So that is Laura Kelly, IIED's director of shaping sustainable markets, speaking there. Interesting that her, talking there at the end, Lindlyn, about less talk more action. And one of the things she picked up on there is this need to break down silos. Interested in your thoughts on that.
Lindlyn Moma [19:24] Well, there are different funds doing different things. That is, that is what the world has come to be right now, but they need to be joined up. I think that there needs to be a harmonised system, but also that system needs to really address local challenges – so really looking at the heart of issues, especially in countries that face the brunt of the climate crisis.
Financing for Development mechanisms need to be much stronger and integrated into other processes, like Climate and Development Ministerials that are also talking about increasing funds for developing countries. And also other processes like the G20 summit, these need to be better integrated.
Simon Cullen [20:01] Do you feel like we're making progress towards that?
Lindlyn Moma [20:05] Making progress is very slow. We cannot take for granted the fact that these conversations are happening, but the progress is very slow as compared to the crisis that we face and the challenges that we face. Again countries at the frontline, communities who have to get that last-mile dollar to survive and who are facing big issues need to actually see changes happening. And we're not doing that as quick as possible to address the crisis that we face.
Simon Cullen [20:30] Yeah, and, as Laura mentioned there, some of those countries on the frontline of the climate crisis are spending more to reservice their debt repayments than they are receiving in climate finance. So obviously that is a, an area that still needs work, especially when it comes to how the international financial system works.
[Music]
Simon Cullen [20:55] Well, let's take a look ahead now to 2025. To date we've just been talking about what's gone on in the past 12 months. So, Lindlyn, I'm interested to hear from you about some key events you'll be watching in the year ahead to see if any further progress might be made.
Lindlyn Moma [21:11] I'll be watching the Financing for Development conference, which takes place in June 2025. I think this is a landmark moment to really see some advancements in financial reforms; international finance architecture really shaping to address the issues in low- and middle-income countries. There has to be a prioritisation of debt relief and the restructuring mechanisms. Like you mentioned, LDCs and SIDS are swimming in debt but still have to, you know, deal with the climate crisis.
I would also be looking at the Climate and Development Ministerial, which is really expected to find, to focus on advancing adaptation finance for LDCs and also increase funding commitment. One other thing I'll be looking at is the G20 summit in South Africa. I think this is a unique moment for the South African presidency to provide an opportunity for developing countries to really shape their agenda, addressing issues around debt crisis; looking at economic shocks which are exacerbated by climate change, looking at the overall impact of climate change and how this is preventing sustainable development.
Last, but definitely not the least, all eyes are on Brazil, which has been talked about as a biodiversity kind of COP. Brazil will be looking at protecting the Amazon forest, tackling deforestation but also, you know, really putting environmental policies at the heart and centre of the international scale. Climate justice would also be key along in all of these processes, the voices of the most affected people will need to rise in these conversations.
Simon Cullen [22:42] Just picking up on the climate COP that you mentioned there in Brazil, that's obviously taking place in 2025. You mentioned that the G20 is going to be hosted by South Africa next year. Does the fact that this is both hosts are in the global South, does that change the dynamic for these meetings? Does it help elevate the voices of those more vulnerable to the effects of climate change?
Lindlyn Moma [23:03] It's definitely an opportunity that least developed countries should grab, countries in the majority world should grab and take advantage of. And they need to present the issues that they're most concerned about. So it does change the dynamics. We have seen the past three COPs hosted in oil-producing states, and what we saw in those is a lot of fossil fuel interest. Now we have an opportunity where Majority World countries are going to be hosting not only the G20 but the climate COP. And I think it's an opportunity for their voices to be raised.
Simon Cullen [23:34] And just picking up again on some of the big geopolitical issues next year. Of course we've got Donald Trump returning to the White House, we've got elections in Germany, one of the sort of key countries, I guess, behind the European Union. And we've seen in other countries shifts towards, I guess a more inward-looking nationalist approach. And so I guess there has been debate around what this means for multilateralism. How do you see that playing out in the context of climate talks or action when it comes to reforming the international financial system?
Lindlyn Moma [24:08] Yeah, as rich countries, especially the US, shifts towards an inward-looking approach, there is definitely going to be a weakening of global cooperation, which will definitely put a lot of pressure on climate change and even financing for adaptation and loss and damage. Multilateralism would definitely be weakened, and this would definitely reduce commitments for financing for LDCs and SIDS, who are dependent on international support for adaptation and also to build their resilience.
Simon Cullen [24:40] OK, so it's going to definitely be a big year ahead. If I could ask you for one final thought on the big change in 2025 that you think will move us one step closer to a thriving sustainable world, what would you say?
Lindlyn Moma [24:52] I am definitely looking forward to countries like Brazil and South Africa and their new leadership at the helm of the climate COP and G20 in 2025. I think they really need to take a stronger stance in advocating for global cooperation, especially on climate finance and adaptation and sustainable development. I think they need to take this opportunity to move the needle in the balance of power. They need to bring more diverse set of voices to international policy negotiations. Looking forward to seeing the growing leadership of LDCs and SIDS in these platforms. So I'm really excited about that.
Simon Cullen [25:30] Yeah, and moving that needle of power, it's an interesting thought because I think with the election of Donald Trump – or the re-election of Donald Trump – and potential other shifts going on in the world… if we look back to the last time Donald Trump was the president, we saw that needle of power move from the federal government to the state level. We saw individual action taking shape in a different way. So I think there's still reasons for hope in terms of the individual action that is going to get us a step closer to a thriving and sustainable world. So I guess we will keep working towards that next year, Lindlyn.
Lindlyn Moma [26:05] Yes, we definitely will.
Simon Cullen [26:07] Well, Lindlyn, thank you so much for joining the Make Change Happen podcast, and for your very first time, appreciate all of your insights.
Lindlyn Moma [26:13] Thank you for having me, Simon.
Simon Cullen [26:15] And obviously we'll be keeping watch of what the institute has in store in 2025. So thank you for your time and thank you for listening.
[Music]
Host [26:24] If you’d like to send us your thoughts and feedback on the discussion, email us at [email protected]. That’s [email protected]. You can find out more information about this podcast and our guests, and learn more about IIED’s research around the issues covered in today’s episode at iied.org/podcast, where you can also listen to previous episodes and browse the rest of our website for more information about IIED and our work.
Soundcloud
TuneIn
Spotify
iTunes
