OTTAWA, October 30, 2018 – A report released today by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) suggests the concerns of Canadians about their future financial well-being are well-placed.

The report, Comprehensive Wealth in Canada 2018 - Measuring What Matters in the Long Run, provides the most complete analysis of wealth undertaken in Canada and one of the only such analyses undertaken for any country. The authors believe the government should place less emphasis on short-term indicators, such as GDP, and pay greater attention to comprehensive wealth when crafting policy and measuring progress.

“The foundation of Canada’s robust GDP growth since the 1980s – its comprehensive wealth – has developed much more slowly and is showing real signs of fragility,” says Scott Vaughan, President and CEO of IISD. “Once you peel back GDP to look at its underlying factors, big red flags start waving on how sustainable our economic results are.”

Comprehensive Wealth in Canada 2018  looks at the five capital stocks assets that make up Canada’s wealth portfolio:

• produced capital is made up of buildings, machinery and infrastructure
• natural capital includes the forests, minerals, fossil fuels and other natural assets
• human capital is the value of the skills and knowledge bound up in the workforce
• financial capital includes stocks, bonds, bank deposits and other financial assets
• social capital measures the degree of civic engagement and cooperation in society

“Since 1980, Canada’s GDP grew more than five times faster than the wealth foundation on which it rests. That’s not sustainable,” says Robert Smith, the report’s lead author. “We need to measure both - GDP and comprehensive wealth - to know where the country is headed. Right now, decision-making scales are tipped in favour of short-term thinking.”

“If the government adopts comprehensive wealth as a new lens to measure progress, Canada will lead the world in complete reporting and planning,” says Vaughan. “Statistics Canada already reports many elements of comprehensive wealth. It would be relatively easy for them to finish the job and give government - and Canadians - the information needed to act on their concerns.”

Interactive Highlights Page
Full Report (PDF)
English Highlights (PDF)
French Highlights (PDF)

-30-

Note for editors

Our analysis points to areas of concern in Canada’s comprehensive wealth portfolio, each of which is a threat to long-term prosperity and well-being.

• The value of Canada’s comprehensive wealth portfolio grew very slowly over the study period, rising from $647,000 per capita[1] in 1980 to just $701,000 in 2015, an annual average growth rate of 0.23 per cent. In contrast, GDP grew at an annual average rate of 1.31 per cent over the same period. According to the UN, Canada’s comprehensive wealth performance has been the worst among G7 countries in recent decades.
• Canadian households have taken on unprecedented levels of debt since 1980, shifting their investments toward housing and away from financial assets, inflating house prices and leaving the rest of the economy reliant on foreign lenders for nearly three quarters of investment flows after 2012. The last time the Canadian economy relied on foreign sources for such a large share of investment was in the mid-1960s.
• An 86 per cent drop in the value of Canada’s most valuable natural asset: the oil sands
• Investment in produced capital has become increasingly concentrated in just two areas: housing and oil and gas extraction infrastructure. By 2015, 25 per cent of all business-sector produced capital was invested in oil and gas extraction assets – up from 9 per cent in 1980.
• Zero growth in human capital since 1980 despite an innovative global economy
• Substantial depletion of market natural capital like minerals and fossil fuels
• Growing encroachment of human development on Canada’s ecosystems
• Weak investment in financial assets
• Climate change has emerged as a major threat to Canada’s comprehensive wealth portfolio. Damages caused by flooding, wildfires and tornadoes are all on the rise.

Note: All figures in this report are quoted in real (that is, inflation-adjusted) per capita terms using chained 2007 dollars as the unit of measure unless otherwise specified.

GENEVA, October 27—Members of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have decided they “will not normally accept to participate in international arbitration” and, “in particular, they will not participate in investor–State arbitration or in commercial arbitration.” International law experts at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) welcome the news.

In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on October 25, Judge Abdulqawi Yusuf, President of the ICJ, described how Members of the Court have “sometimes been called upon by States to sit on … arbitral tribunals … dealing in some cases with inter-State disputes while in others with investor–State disputes.” He went on to mention that, in light of its ever-increasing workload, the Court has recently decided to review this practice and to set out clearly defined rules regulating such activities.

Is “Moonlighting” a Problem? The role of ICJ judges in ISDS, released by IISD last year, found that sitting judges of the International Court of Justice have worked as arbitrators in at least 90 investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) cases.

“IISD has raised a number of issues in relation to ICJ judges acting as arbitrators in investor–state disputes. Our November 2017 paper created a public discussion about the issue,” said Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Director of IISD’s Economic Law & Policy program. She co-authored the study with Martin Dietrich Brauch, an Associate and International Law Adviser with IISD.

Bernasconi stated: “IISD welcomes the news that ICJ judges will, from now on, no longer participate in investor–state arbitration or in commercial arbitration. This move will go a long way in ensuring the ICJ’s reputation for independence as the highest authority on public international law remains intact.”

The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by states (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized UN organs and agencies of the system. The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for a nine-year term by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.

In the future, the Court will, under exceptional circumstances, authorize its members to participate in state–state arbitrations, “if the circumstances so warrant.” President Yusuf clarified that even in such exceptional cases, a Member of the Court will only participate, if authorized, in one arbitration procedure at a time, and provided that the appointment as an arbitrator is not by a State that is a party in a case pending before the Court. This contrasts with current practice pursuant to which some judges increasingly served as arbitrators in several investor–state arbitrations at the same time, alongside their function as members of the International Court of Justice.  

-30-

The federal government’s announcement on Tuesday means that a price on carbon pollution will exist across the country in 2019.

Canada’s federal carbon pricing backstop will apply to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Yukon and Nunavut in 2019; all other provinces and territories will manage their own equivalent systems. We applaud the Canadian government for delivering on this critical piece of its climate action plan.

A carbon price will discourage greenhouse gas-intensive activities and help Canadian companies that create low-carbon goods and services, such as energy-efficiency services and electric buses. Analysis from Environment and Climate Change Canada shows that a price on carbon pollution across Canada will eliminate 50 million–60 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2022. 

We know carbon pricing works and that it can be designed to start reducing emissions without major economic harm. British Columbia, Alberta and Quebec—provinces that already have a carbon price—were the three fastest-growing economies in Canada last year.

The system announced by the federal government Tuesday rightly protects low-income households and sets aside funds to support municipalities, schools, hospitals, Indigenous communities, and small and medium-sized businesses. 

It’s not a tax grab; the revenues raised in each province will be sent back to the people in that province through an annual tax rebate they can claim on their income tax form. The claimed amount will be the same per person based on the total revenues collected in your province (with a 10% bonus for rural Canadians and those living in small communities). In most cases, the rebate will be more than the price itself, protecting families as it encourages them to reduce costs by taking steps like turning down the heat at night and when no one is home, installing smart thermostats, choosing more fuel-efficient cars and using public transit, walking or biking.

Provinces that administer their own price on carbon will continue to use the proceeds as they see fit—right now that includes rebates, tax cuts, and investments in things like renewable energy projects, industrial and consumer energy-efficiency programs, and transit and infrastructure projects. A province in the backstop system could opt out at any time in the future to administer its own program.

The global economy is rapidly evolving to avoid the human, environmental and economic costs of climate change. Canadians are already being hit with these increasing costs. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. Higher sea levels put many of our communities at risk. Insurance payouts from extreme weather have more than doubled every five to 10 years since the 1980s. The list goes on.

We know the risks. We’re paying the costs. The longer we wait to do something, the more we’ll have to pay. A price on carbon emissions across Canada is a good step, and it is long overdue.

OTTAWA: Successfully eradicating poverty through agriculture depends whether a country has enough agricultural land, how fertile it is, and the demographic pressures.

That is the key finding of new research by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). The findings come from a first-of-its kind analytical framework, which tracks the performance of 117 countries over 45 years to understand which policies have succeeded or failed.

“Inclusive agricultural transformation is the bedrock of development. It can lead to increased productivity, higher incomes, food security and women’s empowerment,” said Carin Smaller, Senior Policy Advisor, IISD.

This global analysis explains how progress has been achieved in some countries in recent decades and what steps can be taken for countries to succeed - and the outlook is positive.

“Only 10 countries are still categorized by subsistence agriculture, compared with 30 in 1970,” explains David Laborde, Senior Fellow, IFPRI. “Except for countries at war, no country is worse off than they were decades ago. Our report in a clear indication that agricultural transformation fosters economic empowerment for countries and their communities.”

Key findings:

• To determine the development needs of a particular country, look at how much agricultural land is available, how fertile it is, and birth rates. 
• Agricultural development took off when countries removed price policies that penalize agriculture.
• Public investment in research, extension services, electricity and irrigation are important, but the quality of those services can matter more than quantity.
• Land reforms, research institutions and improving access to credit are also critical, but ultimately no country succeeded without a combination of policies and pubic investments that complemented each other.

“None of the countries studied were able to transform without an appropriate mix of policies and public investment that complemented each other at a given juncture,” Smaller said. “No single measure alone was sufficient to make good progress.”

The report’s analytical framework was complemented by a literature review of 180 papers and reports covering across 28 countries that allowed researchers to compare and contrast the policy priorities of countries with similar starting contexts, to understand the reasons for success and failure. The report’s findings are presented in such a way that any country, by locating itself in the correct cluster, can identify analogue countries and consider the policy and public investment strategies used in the past to help guide future decisions. A time-lapse map shows progress made by the countries highlighted in the report.

WINNIPEG, September 19, 2018—The damage caused by the frequent flooding that Manitoba endures annually could be significantly mitigated if more were invested to maintain its natural infrastructure, such as wetlands and riverbeds.

This is according to a new report from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation and the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Combatting Canada’s Rising Flood Costs found that while natural infrastructure abounds in Canada, and can provide multiple benefits to the environment and human wellbeing, it is often underutilized in favour of more traditional—and often more expensive—built infrastructure projects.

The financial impacts of climate change and extreme weather events, such as flooding, are being increasingly felt by homeowners and communities across Manitoba, and Canada.

In fact, in the last 12 months alone, insurance companies have forked out $1.5 billion to help Canadians cope with the impacts of a changing climate. In Manitoba, an ongoing $950-million class action lawsuit has been brought forward by 4,000 residents of four First Nations following severe flooding in spring 2011 that resulted in damage to homes and mass evacuations.

Investment in natural infrastructure as a means to reduce those damages is not only often more affordable, it can provide a whole host of other benefits such as improved water quality, habitat for wildlife and recreation.

“Natural infrastructure can be more cost efficient than built infrastructure,” said Anne Hammill, director, Resilience program, International Institute for Sustainable Development.

“This is critical because with climate change, more frequent and intense weather events are becoming the new normal and leading to escalating costs. Natural infrastructure can offset millions in spending and offer multiple environmental and social benefits compared to traditional grey infrastructure systems.”

Here in Manitoba, we are home to abundant networks of wetlands that naturally absorb excess water during times of flooding, however, we haven’t always been diligent about protecting them.

“Action needs to be taken not only to restore the many defunct water retention sites in our province,” said Dimple Roy, director, Water Policy, International Institute for Sustainable Development, “but also actively manage those that still exist so they are effective to their full capacity and reduce the drain on finances that flood damage brings.”

“The report cites an impressive case study from a water restoration project to Pelly’s Lake right here in Manitoba where the ultimate benefits to water quality and lake health far outweighed the operating costs. There is no reason why this cannot be replicated—and the gains amplified—throughout the rest of the province.”

- 30-

For more information, or to arrange interviews, contact:

Sumeep Bath, Communications Manager, IISD Experimental Lakes Area,

[email protected] or +1 (204) 958 7700 ext 740

Federal government uses hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to support the fossil fuel industry, keeps true cost of subsidies hidden from Canadians

Ottawa, September 17, 2018 – As policy-makers are about to meet at the G7 environment ministers’ meeting in Halifax this week, a coalition of environmental organizations has launched a report that provides details on the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies that the federal government is still providing to the fossil fuel industry every year. The report, entitled Public Cash for Oil and Gas, sheds light on the tax breaks, fiscal supports and direct grants that are encouraging the production of more oil, gas and coal, even as the government moves to reduce demand for fossil fuels through carbon pricing and climate action programs.

The report finds that, although there has been some progress on fossil fuel subsidy reform in Canada in recent years, there is still a significant amount of work to be done. Canada is the largest provider of government support for oil and gas production per unit of GDP of all G7 countries, which together had pledged to end all “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” by 2025 at a meeting in 2016. With the recent purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, it is likely that the quantifiable amounts of federal subsidies just became even larger.

“Our findings illustrate the need to reform the tax system so that the impact of fossil fuel subsidies on climate change and the environment is taken into account, and that public funds are managed in ways that are most beneficial to Canadians,” says Yanick Touchette of the International Institute for of Sustainable Development. “For Canada to move forward on its climate commitments, the government will undoubtedly be faced with a number of tough choices.”

In fact, the level of federal support for fossil fuel production is likely much higher than outlined in the Public Cash for Oil and Gas report. A lack of transparency from the federal government made many tax deductions claimed by oil and gas companies impossible to quantify.

The fossil fuel subsidy phase-out process must be accelerated

Even as the federal government prepares to roll out a national carbon price in 2019, its fiscal efforts to upkeep Canada’s fossil fuel industry may lock in environmentally harmful economic activities. The oil and gas sector accounted for more than a quarter of Canadian emissions in 2016. Since 1990, the sector’s emissions have increased by 70 per cent. When considering oil sands production alone, the increase is 367 per cent during the same period.

“Although $200 million for federal fossil fuel subsidies is lower than our study from three years ago, this has more to do with the oil price crash and crafty industry tax accounting than significant action by Canada’s government,” says Patrick DeRochie of Environmental Defence. “Combining carbon pricing and fossil fuel subsidies is like trying to bail water out of a leaky boat. If you don’t fix the leak (the subsidies) you are never going to fix the problem (growing GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector).”

In June, the federal government agreed to enter into a peer review process of its fossil fuel subsidies with Argentina.

“Canada and Argentina’s peer review process is a welcomed and required step. It will need to ensure real transparency to fill in the gaps identified in the report,” says Catherine Abreu of Climate Action Network. “As 2018 G7 President, Canada needs to lead in getting nations to develop a detailed roadmap on how G7 members intend to phase out these subsidies by 2025.”

Purchase of Trans Mountain likely to entail a new significant subsidy

The analysis of federal support for the fossil fuel industry comes shortly after the federal government finalized its purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline and its proposed expansion. There is a high risk that the pipeline purchase will entail a large subsidy, as it will provide a direct financial benefit to Kinder Morgan in the form of indemnification, financial assurances and the potential resale of the pipeline for below market value.       

“Canada should be rapidly phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and planning for the managed decline of the oil and gas industry, but instead it’s buying a tar sands pipeline and financing its expansion,” says Adam Scott of Oil Change International. “The federal government should stop wasting public money on a sunset industry and start investing in a clean energy future and a just transition for communities and workers.”

Propping up a sunset industry is slowing down the transition to a clean energy future

By making fossil fuel extraction and production financially attractive, these policies undermine renewable energy alternatives’ attractiveness to and ability to compete for investors and tip the scales in favour of the energy sources that are driving climate change. Reforming broad fossil fuel subsidies and supports can remove distortion from the markets and prevent the creation of oil and gas projects that will become increasingly reliant on government support to remain viable.

“The fiscal space created by removing subsidies and supports can be utilized to fund a just transition that takes care of the workers and communities that will be most affected when Canada’s energy sector evolves towards clean energy alternatives,” concludes Mr. Touchette.

-30-

To learn more:

The full report can be accessed here. It is also available in French. 

Public Cash for Oil and Gas’ analysis of federal fossil fuel subsidies will be followed by inventories of provincial subsidies later this year, with a Quebec inventory having already been released.

About #StopFundingFossils

#StopFundingFossils (INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE, CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK, ÉQUITERRE, OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL) is a coalition of environmental groups that have come together to ensure Canada fulfills and accelerates its commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

About INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (iisd.org): The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is an independent think tank championing sustainable solutions to 21st century problems. Our mission is to promote human development and environmental sustainability. Through research, analysis and knowledge sharing, we identify and champion sustainable solutions that make a difference.

About ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE: (environmentaldefence.ca): Environmental Defence is Canada’s most effective environmental action organization. We challenge, and inspire change in government, business and people to ensure a greener, healthier and prosperous life for all.

About CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK (CAN-Rac) (climateactionnetwork.ca): Canada’s primary network of organizations working on climate change and energy issues, CAN-Rac is a coalition of more than 100 organizations operating from coast to coast to coast. Our membership brings environmental groups together with trade unions, First Nations, social justice, development, health and youth organizations, faith groups and local, grassroots initiatives.

About OIL CHANGE INTERNATIONAL (priceofoil.org): Oil Change International is a research, communication, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the coming transition towards clean energy.

For more information or to arrange an interview:

Ziona Eyob, International Institute for Sustainable Development; [email protected]

Barbara Hayes, Environmental Defence; [email protected]

KENORA, September 6, 2018—Dr. Michael Paterson, Gail Asper and family have just announced that they will match, dollar-for-dollar, $1,000,000 of donations to IISD Experimental Lakes Area (IISD-ELA)—the world’s freshwater laboratory—in northwestern Ontario.

This generous matching grant is to celebrate 50 years of unique and ground-breaking freshwater research at IISD-ELA, and will go towards establishing an endowment fund to secure the next fifty years of the site.

Dr. Michael Paterson, Gail Asper and family have now donated $2,000,000 to date to support the world’s freshwater laboratory in northwestern Ontario.

“This is an exceptionally generous gift from a family that has already shown so much public support for IISD Experimental Lakes Area, and for that we thank them greatly,” said Matt McCandless, Executive Director, IISD Experimental Lakes Area.”

“Like many Canadians, Mike, Gail and family are proud that Canada hosts an incredibly unique research facility that, over the last 50 years, has taught us everything from what causes algal blooms to the impact of mercury, acid rain and oil spills on freshwater lakes. We hope that as we celebrate our fiftieth year, Canadians will give generously to help secure the future of fresh water.”

“As lake people, we are fortunate and proud to have IISD Experimental Lakes Area in our own backyard, here in the North,” said the Honourable Bob Nault, Member of Parliament for Kenora.

“Their world-renowned research has produced amazing results that work to protect and preserve our fresh water. I especially want to thank Gail Asper for her generous donation, which will help IISD-ELA continue their important research so that future generations can continue to enjoy the beauty and benefits of healthy waters, now and in the future.”

“This is great news for IISD Experimental Lakes Area and what a wonderful way to mark its 50th year,” said Greg Rickford, Member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament for Kenora—Rainy River and Ontario Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

“As someone who was pivotal in the transfer of the Experimental Lakes Area to IISD, I would like to thank Gail Asper and Michael Paterson for their most generous offer of a matching challenge to help ensure the important work at IISD-ELA may continue for the next 50 years. As the Member of Provincial Parliament for the Kenora-Rainy River riding and Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I look forward to working with IISD Experimental Lakes Area.”

“I want to congratulate IISD Experimental Lakes Area in celebrating 50 years of ground-breaking research that has influenced so many important public policy issues on freshwater ecosystems not only here at home, but around the world,” said the Honourable Rochelle Squires, Manitoba Minister of Sustainable Development.”

“A cornerstone of freshwater science in Canada and abroad, IISD-ELA has played an important role in helping inform decisions that protect Lake Winnipeg and other waterways in Manitoba.”

“Having IISD Experimental Lakes Area on this pristine watershed is great a bonus for the future of Canada and the world,” said His Worship Mayor Dave Canfield. “It is in the heart of North America—Kenora—where water is our future.”

IISD Experimental Lakes Area is the world’s freshwater laboratory. It is an exceptional natural laboratory comprised of 58 small lakes and their watersheds in a remote part of northwestern Ontario set aside for scientific research. IISD-ELA is the only place on earth where researchers can experiment on real lakes to discover the impact of human activities over the long-term. For the last 50 years those lakes have taught us what causes algal blooms, what acid rain, mercury, dams and oil spills do to fresh water, and much more.

-30-

For more information, or to arrange interviews, contact:

Sumeep Bath, Communications Manager, IISD Experimental Lakes Area

[email protected] or (204) 599 2595

www.iisd.org/ela

New financial tools and sources must be harnessed to fund soil restoration and remediation projects to improve communities’ health, according to a new series of reports from a coalition of researchers from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the Norwegian Institute of Water Research and the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning (CAEP).  

“When our soils are contaminated, they pose an immediate threat to our communities’ health and well-being,” says Oshani Perera, Director, Public Procurement and Infrastructure Finance, IISD, one of the authors of the reports. “Although governments want to help their communities, we often see these soil remediation projects costing far more than they can afford alone.”

Governments need to be aware of the financial vehicles available to attract investments for soil remediation projects. These funding opportunities not only remedy degraded lands, but provide adequate funding for greener forms of development, including green urban infrastructure, renewable energy, clean industrial technology, public transportation and more.

Soil contamination has become an urgent issue globally. In China alone, nearly 20 per cent of farmland is contaminated, posing a severe health risk, with remediation efforts expected to cost up to nine trillion Chinese Yuan, or nearly 1.72 trillion Canadian dollars, during the five years between 2016 and 2020. The government itself estimated it might be able to cover only a small fraction of the overall cost. The rest will have to come from private sources.

On August 31, top legislatures in China adopted the Soil Pollution Prevention and Control Law, proposing the establishment of earmarked funding to fight against soil pollutions. The law also establishes legal basis for issuing tax credits and developing innovative credit enhancement tools to encourage private investments into soil remediation projects.

“The funding challenge may seem daunting, but so are the public health consequences of not addressing soil contamination in our communities,” adds Perera. “The future stability of society, and the very legitimacy of our governments, is closely linked to addressing how to fund soil remediation projects to ensure the long-term health of our current and future generations.”

Governments around the world often rely on raising funds from private sources, leveraging capital markets or through public-private partnerships to fund soil remediation efforts. Financing Models for Soil Remediation, a series of new reports prepared by IISD and partners, highlights financing tools that blend public and private funding for environmental rehabilitation to identify policy, regulatory and institutional gaps. The report series includes more than 30 real-world case studies gathered from different parts of the world. The researchers hope that by presenting examples on how to resolve real environmental problems through innovative financing instruments, their efforts will take the green and sustainable investment movement to another level.

Michael Paterson, Gail Asper and family will make an announcement regarding funding to IISD Experimental Lakes Area in Kenora on Thursday September 6, 2018.

There will be also be words from the Honourable Bob Nault, MP for Kenora and His Worship Dave Canfield, Mayor of Kenora.

There will be opportunities for media to interview and photograph all of those present.

Details of Announcement

Date: Thursday September 6, 2018

Time: 11:00 a.m.

Location: Whitecap Pavilion, Bernier Drive, Kenora

IISD Experimental Lakes Area is the world’s freshwater laboratory. It is an exceptional natural laboratory comprised of 58 small lakes and their watersheds in a remote part of northwestern Ontario set aside for scientific research. IISD-ELA is the only place on earth where researchers can experiment on real lakes to discover the impact of human activities over the long-term. For the last 50 years those lakes have taught us what causes algal blooms, what acid rain, mercury, dams and oil spills do to fresh water, and much more.

Michael Paterson, Gail Asper and family have donated $1,000,000 to date, to support IISD Experimental Lakes Area.

-30-

For more information, or to arrange interviews, contact:

Sumeep Bath, Communications Manager, IISD Experimental Lakes Area

[email protected] or (204) 958 7700 ex 740

The growing use of solar panels, electric vehicles and wind turbines is a necessary part of tackling climate change.

But poor and opaque management of the minerals needed for these green energy technologies – from the mine site to the end customer – could fuel fragility, conflict, and violence, a new report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development says.

Released today, Green Conflict Minerals applauds the global surge in demand for green technologies and tracks the full spectrum of minerals required for their production. While this should translate into economic boons for communities near required minerals, strategic reserves can become fuel for exploitation if not managed responsibly. This a risk when they are found in countries already struggling with fragility and corruption.

“Stories of armed groups operating cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo and of riots breaking out around bauxite mining in Guinea are just two examples that have raised this issue’s profile, but it’s something that needs to be championed by the same voices correctly calling for a green economic transition,” says report co-author Clare Church. “Most of these metals are not covered in existing conflict mineral legislation, with the exception of tin.”

While previous studies have examined minerals in the wider tech sector or concentrated solely on rechargeable batteries, Green Conflict Minerals is the first study to look at the broad swathe of metals needed for low-carbon technologies and point to gaps in the responsible management of supply chains.

(View full screen interactive map)

To visualize the report’s findings, an interactive map overlays strategic mineral reserves required for green energy technology with measures of state fragility and corruption (as defined and measured by the Fund for Peace and Transparency International, respectively). The frequent overlap of state weakness with mineral concentration shows how ripe the situation is for abuse.

“There’s no question we need to shift to a low-carbon economy. This technology will get us there,” says Church, “but we need to do it without blood on our hands.”

Available for interview:

Clare Church, Research Officer, IISD, report co-author (UTC−05:00)
Alec Crawford, Senior Researcher, IISD, report co-author (UTC−05:00)

Peer reviewers:

Blanca Racionero Gomez and Kate MacLeod, Levin Sources
Isabelle Ramdoo, Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development
John Drexhage, World Bank
Louis Maréchal and Luca Maiotti, OECD
Sophia Pickles, Global Witness

Suggested interviews:

The World Bank (media office)
World Economic Forum (media office)
International Council of Mining and Minerals (contacts)
Responsible Minerals Initiative (contacts)
Local solar or wind energy companies, electric vehicle manufacturers and associations