Press Conference: How Good Mining Governance Can Integrate Responsible Mining to Protect Biodiversity and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, UN Convention on Biodiversity - COP 17

So in interest of time, we will start with our press conference on how good mining governance can promote responsible mining whilst safeguarding biodiversity and the rights of indigenous people and local communities. My name is Francisca Astuardo, and I represent the international organization Global Witness.

Can you please introduce yourself?

Morning, everybody. My name is Ratu Diantina. I am a communications manager for Satya Bumi, that environmental organization, and focus on environmental and human rights issue from Indonesia.

Hello, my name is Roni Selma Brasa.

Representative of Rajampat Indigenous People's Community. Thanks because today I'm coming here to share of the experience from the youth peoples.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Jasmine Puteri. from Rainforest Foundation Norway, a senior advisor for supply chain on critical minerals.

So to begin with, we will set the scene and then we will delve in particular cases. So and in addition to that, we will analyze the situation in the midst of the negotiations on during COP 17 and we will leave a set of recommendations on behalf of civil society organizations that widely cover the interlinks between biodiversity and human rights violations. So to begin with, we already know that the demand of raw materials and as critical materials or transitional minerals is accelerating due to the energy transition, the AI, digitalization, the military sector. Decarbonizing the world is also a massive challenge because it increases pressure on these transitional minerals that include lithium, cobalt, nickel, rare earths, to name some. The demand of these materials is rising and therefore, and the lack of effective alternatives is is also lacking and environmental and social risk increase if they are not governed responsibly. And these impacts might include expanding mining sites into critical ecosystems, including forests, peatlands, wetlands, and permafrost. These ecosystems are not the only ones at risk. Communities, defenders, the territories where mining projects take place are too. The intensive and extensive use of land for mining purposes flags a risk to frontline communities, particularly indigenous people. The lack of a right-based approach therefore leaves these people worse off, without access to the potential benefits of mining exploitation, while bearing most of the cost of it. Just to name an example, the organization Global Witness has extensively documented attacks against environmental defenders worldwide. Since 2012 until now, we have traced over 2,375 land and environmental defenders' killings or disappearances. This violence is frequently tied to land disputes, mining, logging, agribusiness, infrastructure development, amongst other drivers. In this subset, Indigenous people account for 36% of the recorded cases historically. Indigenous people, women and youth are amongst the most vulnerable populations due to their their relationship to their ancestral territory and the threats that racism, patriarchal structures pose that creates additional barriers to fully ensure that they substantively participate in defining the route to development. Hence, today we urgently call governments, corporate actors and financial institutions to strengthen both policies and practice to ensure that a sustainable supply chain and prevent the energy transition from reproducing the harm of past extractivism. And I will hand it over to my colleague, Restu.

Thank you, Francisca. So in the context of the energy transition, a roadmap, Indonesia has the world's largest nickel deposit of reserves, with an estimated 55 million to 62 million tons of content nickel metal, accounting for more than 40% to 44% of global nickel reserves. Most of them are located in eastern Indonesia and small islands. And our government have regulations. Law number one of 2014 concerning management of coastal areas and small islands stipulates that islands with an area of less than 2,000 kilometers square are categorized as small islands. are not allowed to be exploited for any activity of extractivism. So Indonesia, there's a small island, Kabana Island, a small island in southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia, home to the Bajo people, the world's last remaining nomadic sea tribe, who have maintained a close relationship with the sea for centuries. Cabana has a total area of 891 km2 approximately. 73% has been allocated to mining concession and 40% of those concessions are already active. The clearing of forests and land for mining on Kabena Island has damaged the environment and polluted the sea, leading to a decline in water quality and severe pollution that threatens the health of the local community and indigenous people and endangered biodiversity. As a result of water pollution from heavy metals such as lead, mercury, cadmium, which exceed safe thresholds, fish population have plummeted and coral reefs have been severely damaged. Cabana Island is also part of a region with high biodiversity value. This is reflected in the presence of three key biodiversity areas, which are a critical area for marine biodiversity and of significant importance for reptiles, and various plant species. However, in these three KBS, environmental damage happened due to deforestation and sedimentation from nickel mining. The sedimentation caused by nickel mining poses a serious threat to the environment particularly marine life. So some mining waste is even located with no-take zones, areas designated as off-limits for natural resource exploitation activities, such as fishing or the collection of marine organisms. Furthermore, this sedimentation also threatens the migration of a rare species, the leatherback sea turtle, the world's largest sea turtle, which is classified as critically endangered on the IUCN Red List. The largest nesting population of leatherback sea turtles in the Western Pacific, 50% to 75% of which is found in West Papua, Indonesia, has declined by more than 80%. The threat posed by nickel mining on Kabena Island cannot be viewed solely as an issue of land clearing and vegetation damage on land. Erosion and sedimentation can link the impacts of mining in upstream areas to the degradation of coastal and marine ecosystems, including areas of high conservation value, no-take zones and habitat that support the movement of rare wildlife. Protecting Cabana's biodiversity therefore requires comprehensive management of mining impacts, from the mainland to coastal waters, while taking into account the ecological function of the area and the survival of the species that depend on it. Cabana is just one example of how nickel exploitation can severely damage the environment, threaten biodiversity, and violate indigenous people's rights. These similar cases also happened across Indonesia, particularly on small islands like Wawonii, and islands in eastern Indonesia such as Raja Ampat, Weda Bay, Sagiya, Obi Island, Wawonii, and some areas like Pomala and Morowali Industrial Park. So to ensure that biodiversity commitments result in tangible protection on Kabana Island and also across small island across in Indonesia, we demand Indonesia government to enforce biodiversity protection in land use planning and permitting processes, halting degradation and restoring impacted ecosystem. and share species protection and habitat connectivity, integrating biodiversity and human rights into development planning, strengthening accountability in the private sector and the nickel supply chain. Thank you. And the story from Rajampat that I mentioned before will be presented by our colleague, Ronan Isel, Malaysia.

Okay, thank you. I want to share some message from Ranjampat. There are some events that we have been experienced there. Ranjampat today have a lot of problem.

Tahu tentang Raja Ampat Bagaimana keindahan di sana.

Even though today a lot of people know how beautiful of the Raja Ampat.

Namun saat ini saya bersama masyarakat adat saya.

However today me and the uh my community mengalami tantangan besar facing a lot of threat.

Di sana banyak perusahaan-perusahaan nikel.

There are a lot of the nickel mining companies.

Yang merusak lingkungan dan alam kami.

The destroying of our natures.

Yang menutup ruang hidup kami.

That close of our living space.

Namun sebelum daripada perusahaan itu datang.

Before that companies come in.

Dulunya kami masyarakat adat hidup baik.

We as the Ineos community are living harmony.

Tidak pernah ada kerusakan lingkungan.

There is no destructions. Our oceans is so beautiful. And our forest is really intact. There is no clearing of the mountain that destroying by the excavator.

But today, we lose our living space. Before that companies come in, we never depend on these companies. Because our parents taught us.

Because our elders teach us on how independently and depend on of our forest and oceans without any distractions without of the mining company.

I am the evidence that victims that.

Experience of the torture by the companies.

And today I'm here. I want to share the message. Getting the support from all of you. I.

To make sure the voice of the news people can go from the Pacific to other regions. We cannot living without all of your help.

We need of your voice.

And your solidarity for us, nationals, internationals, and also internationals.

Hari ini and today's saya juga membawa suara masyarakat adat.

I also bring the voice of the US peoples.

Dari arborek deklarasi arborek from the arborek declarations yang pernah kami lakukan that we have met saya bersama masyarakat adat.

I'm together with the other seniors peoples perwakilan dari wawoni from the wawoni murwali marwali weda weda Brazil, Amazon, Amazon, Brazilian, Amazon, and the other indigenous peoples. We want to recognize of the indigenous peoples. That's why from here, I want to share this message.

For my voice can hear and can be delivered.

Thank you. May God help all of us.

After listening all the statements from Indigenous people community, but also cases happening on the ground, Rainforest Foundation Norway, looking at the negative impacts from mining, together with our allies, Mighty Earth, FERN, also Greenpeace International, we have a tool called Restricted Areas from Mining. We developed this platform as a map, but also a tool to assess which areas that should not be touched from mining. This is because some places are too vulnerable, too valuable, and it's irreplaceable when it comes to the ecosystems. And this would make sure that there will be protection from ecological, social, but also values, cultural values that is embedded into these places. And Indigenous people rights through the free, prior, and informed consent is the most important key element to this. because by having restricted zone, it would be a way for us to prevent further negative impacts from mining, especially linked to the transition energy, but also other demands. And this is not only to protect biodiversity, but also to make sure that there will be no further habitat destructions. And there should be places where mine not happen. Through this restricted areas framework, we come into six layers. One is to make sure that protected areas is being one key restricted areas. This is where areas of international conventions linked to the IUCN, World Heritage from UNESCO list, but also from Ramsar site. The second layer is on the high conservation values, where areas of the intact forest landscapes and the key biodiversity areas. The third layer that should be paid attention to is the high carbon stock areas where forests, peatlands and carbon sequester areas are there. Another layer that part of the six restricted areas is the significant natural ecosystem where small islands that have been presented by Restu is now under threat. and also mangroves ecosystem. And apart from these five layers of biodiversity, indigenous people and local communities areas should also be the approach of blanketed areas, especially when free, prior and informed consent has not been obtained. And indigenous people in the voluntary isolation should also be under considered as restricted areas. This could also be considered as a no-go zone. Restricted areas or areas that should not be mined is a way for us to assess which areas that should not be mined due to this high biodiversity, but also to assess how to make sure that biodiversity protected, but also indigenous people are being protected. Another thing that NGOs, but also other stakeholders should pay attention to is how to hold mining certification and also mining standards accountable, as voluntary standards is becoming a very crucial point issue right now. it's very important for government, for companies, investors to take a look at as these restricted areas and how to make sure that the most relevant stakeholders that make decisions adopt, integrate, and also implement these restricted areas along the value chain. Another thing that is very important to pay attention is how to make sure that certification or standards and third party audits of being hold accountable as this is a way to de-risking the environmental and social impacts. And transparency is very important. Another important thing to pay attention to is the due diligence, how this would be embed into regulations. During this CBD 17, something that came up recently as well that need to be paid attention to is how we can strengthen the wording as there is signal that the weakening at the 14A article where certain commodities should be excluded. Another thing is to make sure that we as a community would strengthen the regulations to make sure that corporates, but also actors, government and parties would also safeguarding the human rights, especially recognizing the indigenous people rights. Thank you.

So to close, we believe that despite negotiations and language and targets, the impacts in the ground are deeply entrenched. So changes in language not only challenge the successful implementation of the Common Montreal Global Diversity Framework, but also put the lives and livelihoods of people at risk. Any questions? Or comments? Please go ahead. Can you introduce yourself and?

In Southeast Asia? Because, oh, thank you. Because I think often it seems so challenging. So some of the concessions on Raja Ampat have been canceled, but not all of them. This seems like an intractable problem. And so I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the genesis of the restricted areas map and how concepts of limits to extraction have worked in other sectors in Southeast Asia?

Thank you for your questions. I think looking back in Southeast Asia, if I can just zoom in into Indonesia, palm oil sector was the major commodity that contributing to deforestation in Indonesia and also Malaysia. And looking at the sector, how communities, international communities from investors, from government, but also from corporate sectors agreed on certain frameworks, how to limit, how to make sure, for example, high carbon stock areas, high biodiversity areas should not be touched or should not be further degraded or deforested for palm oil. So learning from these kind of good progress from different commodities is very crucial so that mining sector can adopt it too. Because I believe or we believe and in this room if one sector or commodity could make such positive progress, hence mining could follow this, having more transparency, more value chain due diligence. When everybody committed, then I think we can prevent further biodiversity loss, but also to protect the communities and also indigenous people in the areas. Thank you.

Any other question?

Thank you very much for sharing all your experiences. Talking about the standards, have you been able to engage into some conversation with mining companies?

I can try to take this question. From RFN ourselves, we are engaging throughout the value chain. So from the upstream side of the value chain, which are the mining companies, but also we are engaging with the downstream side of the value chain. So with upstream side, yes, we engage, we have conversations how to make sure that we can prevent further biodiversity loss, but also how to make sure that there will be corrective actions in place, because what we need right now is the corrective actions. It is very difficult, but I think it requires trust among the stakeholders to come into place and sit and to make sure that there is a commitment to make sure that the corrective action is implemented. But I think apart from the mining companies itself, what is very important that we also hold accountable everyone throughout the value chain, which including the downstream companies and government. Like it or not, putting regulation in place is very important. If I could make one case right now, for example, when it comes to mining, EU battery regulation will take place soon in February 2027, as well as the EU battery passport. And this is a way to address issues and compliances on the downstream companies, which further down will be to the upstream. to make sure that they do the right thing and do corrective actions to make sure that they have market access, especially for the European market.

I want to share my experience. We are in Raja Ampat.

Tidak perlu untuk harus kami komunikasi dengan pihak perusahaan kami ingin.

Perusahaan itu harus pindah dari tempat kami kami tidak ingin perusahaan itu beroperasi di wilayah adat kami berdasarkan keputusan pemerintah.

Regards of the government decisions 2025 tahun lalu on 2025 last year keputusan pemerintah untuk mencabut empati perusahaan.

The government's decisions to revoke of four permit Raja 4 in Raja 4 hingga sampai saat ini masih ada perusahaan yang beroperasi yaitu PT Gak nikel Saya berharap dengan upaya-upaya kami yang sekarang, perusahaan itu juga harus pergi dan meninggalkan wilayah adat kami.

Kami butuh wilayah adat kami dan tanah kami. Kami tidak ingin ada perusahaan-perusahaan yang beroperasi di wilayah kami.

Dengan keras kami menolak. reject on that one. Because we are aware, we can live without the nickel, but we cannot live without oceans and forests.

That's our reasons.

And we are living in our territory without any invest from that mining. Yeah, there is. Yeah, thank you.

Okay, I will add some comments. In Satya Bomi, we also have role to put pressure on private sector and also we engage with them as well, but maybe in a different way. So we have, the first one, sometimes we held uh, multi-stakeholder forum with, uh, some, uh, private sectors, uh, uh, mining companies that, uh, you know, in- involve in our, uh, uh, advocacy, uh, locations, uh, such as, uh, for example, in Pomala, a block, uh, There's three entity that have a concession and also investment there. We engage with Vale, we engage with Ford, we engage with Huawei as well. But also we do the, we're using OECD mechanism and also IRMA compliance to filing the compliance because I think this is, we think, we believe this is the most, for now, the most possible way to engage and reach out them in the very, what is it, a fair approach. not to being like one-on-one conversation that maybe the accountability will be questions, but we do, we develop the communication publicly and we try to be accountable as well as what we advocate to the public. But that's the thing. In Indonesia, for example, in Kabena, most of the mining companies is a local owned company and they have no, what is it, membership with international forum or international organization or trade organization, that's a challenge to us to communicate with them. There's no mechanism, a formal mechanism to reach out to them. We just sending letters, but until now, there's no response at all. So even though we also reach out to the ministries to do the enforcement and everything, but the response for now is a very bare minimum. So that's the challenge in Indonesia. But we also hope that this kind of forum can make up also pressures to not only government but also the private sector to govern the responsible mining. Thank you.

We are about to wrap up, so if there's any other question, we can answer one more.

So my name is Fidelin. I'm a student. I'm doing research on how we can integrate diverse values into decision making around mining in forest landscapes. So I was just thinking like yesterday also, I was attending a side event where they were discussing issues on how we can push for responsible mining. And I think in research, one of the questions We have found that people ask all the time is, like communities, do we have the right to veto, to say no to mining when it benefits, like maybe when it brings benefits to the whole country? And the discussion has always been like, mining contributes a lot to jobs, GDP, and all of that. So I just wanted to understand, I don't know from your perspective, like, is there a middle ground anywhere that we can compromise with mining and maybe just thinking like other benefits that it could bring to the community, like where do we draw the line and what are really the gray areas or is it like no to mining and all of that, just some general perspectives. Thank you.

Thank you so much. As we said before, we see that what happens with communities that all of these different targets are deeply entrenched and mutually reinforcing. So I believe that having prior consent from communities, ensuring that the both voluntary and potential policies are thoroughly implemented and that the standards are raised so mining companies have higher standards of compliance and we can ensure that But we cannot do that without substantive participation from affected communities. And that substantive participation includes the right to have access to information, to participate fully in the decision making, to benefit from the mining outcomes, and also to have a grievance mechanism so they can ensure justice is provided when none of these provisions have been there. So we have different regulations, we have regional agreements, there's also the UN business and human rights principles. So there are different instruments that we can use so far, even though we don't have specific regulations in country, and despite the fact that these regulations are on the way. But I believe that we already have tools to enact these rights.

I can try to chime in on this. As what already being mentioned by Francisca, free, prior and informed consent is the rule of thumb, and it shouldn't be only a checklist. It has to be a meaningful process, including when it comes to FPIC, when they withdraw their FPIC. It should be respected. Dialogues should be having two balanced power, because oftentimes, Companies do have more resources and capacities with lawyers, with knowledge. So there should be a way to have the conversation balanced. But also when it comes to benefit sharing, it should be discussed the way how it would benefit the communities and Indigenous people. I'll stop here.

Just to give an example, in Zambia, there was this hope that the materials would change the standards for living population but it remains one of the largest exporters of raw copper but what it has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the world with more than 60% of people living in poverty so that a test of that the fact that we are extracting minerals and gaining benefits doesn't mean that there's a trickle down effect to people. So we need to ensure that they're fully embedded into the decision making and that they can also fully participate in the outcomes and the benefits that mining might bring, especially because of the pressing and the geopolitics that are around mining and the pressure to transition out from fossil fuels. So we still have a couple of minutes for just one more question, but otherwise we would like to thank you for coming and joining this conversation. I don't know if there's anybody else that would like to. Yeah, please do. The mic is over there. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for the good discussion. I am Salvatrice from the CBD Women's Caucus, so we advocate for recognition and the integration of gender responsive approach in biodiversity conservation and also recognition of the traditional knowledge of indigenous people in the local communities. I came just almost at the end of the discussion but it was really interesting. My question goes to I heard that you are discussing about mining and the local communities and benefit sharing. And most of the time you find that those big companies they have power because they have money. And I would like if I don't know if you have already tackled on that. Which approach are you seeing? Ah to make the dialogue with them. More convincing for benefit sharing. Efficient. Benefit sharing. Not those small small things they give. But ehm efficient, benefit sharing, but also how power relations is working. Ah, when it comes to those companies, how do you approach this. This can help many ah local communities, indigenous people working around the mining and the other other big companies business. Thank you.

I can briefly say that I think from a policy perspective, we need both a bottom-up and a top-down approach. So we need both communities to be informed, to be fully participating, and just to kind of, so we're able to engage with people so they understand their potentials and the benefits that may arise from these projects, but also the risks, and they're aware of the risks. So that's one part of the job that maybe us, as civil society organisations, it's our duty to ensure that that happens at different levels. And then we also, but we cannot just rely on people, we also need stronger regulations, because voluntary standards have proved not to be sufficient. So I think we need these two approaches combined. We need to put pressure on authorities so there are stronger regulations in place. so that companies are held accountable for not doing so. And because it also, it will imply that doing like effective processes will save them money if they don't do them, but if there are regulations in place. Otherwise, relying on voluntary standards leaves too much room for bare minimums.

If I could add a little bit, as what I acknowledge already, there is this power imbalance and companies will always have stronger capacity with lawyers, those that would understand the articles. Meanwhile, Indigenous people groups not necessarily having enough or sufficient capacity or knowledge about this. I think what already being mentioned, how to make sure that Indigenous people groups also know that there are NGOs networks on the ground who have capacity to assist how to negotiate, how to do meaningful, free, prior and informed consent. Rainforest Foundation Norway is also in very close relationship with Search Coalition. Search Coalition already came up with a guidance, a toolkit, how indigenous people groups and communities can negotiate, what kind of questions that should be posed, should, could be one of the first way to negotiate. And also to understand that they have the rights to withdraw their FPIC. Because having the power to say no, it's also a way to respect FPIC. And apart from that, when the, when the company is, using certain mining standards is important for NGOs, but also to communities, what kind of mining standards there is, what kind of governance mechanism available, but also to understand who are the representatives in these mining standards, because oftentimes there are representatives for indigenous people. And if they have the power also on the boards, it means it's something that they can approach and have dialogues with. But I think the most key important issues is to have the dialogue and then make sure that indigenous people and local communities have strong assistance from the network because oftentimes every jurisdictions have different kind of regulations that would protect the indigenous people. Thank you.

Okay, just I add just a few words. So what we do on the ground, we do the capacity building like Jasmine mentioned, not about not just about the rights, but also how they can advocate themselves. If there's a legal, something like illegal happening, you know, like criminalization, discrimination, intimidation happened to them, they can advocate themselves. So they also know the risk, not about regarding the laws, but also the health impact, the job risk, the income risk, the livelihood risk. They really need to know. That's why what we do on the ground is to as possible enough to give all of the information about the context of what mining do, what for they do it, all of this destruction. Because usually what the companies always mention to the people, to the indigenous people, just you know, the benefit, temporary benefit for them. We need to know them, but this is not sustainable to live, you know, to sustain life. Yeah, something like that. Thank you.

So we are on time. We really thank you for engaging in this conversation and thank you for coming. If you have any other questions, we can take them outside because our time is up. Thank you so much.

Thank you.