Demand for critical minerals is already at unprecedented levels, yet it continues to grow rapidly. The clean energy transition is often cited to explain and justify this surge: we need cobalt, lithium, and nickel for our electric vehicle (EV) batteries, copper and rare earth minerals for wind and solar. Yet a significant share of demand – more than 70% according to a recent analysis – is in fact driven by other industries like military expansion, communications, or Artificial Intelligence (AI) development.

Governments are competing with increasing urgency to secure scarce mineral resources and exert control over mineral supply chains; at the same time, sensitive ecosystems and Indigenous and local communities bear the environmental and social costs of expanding extraction. Without decisive efforts to strengthen safeguards and address demand, the race for critical minerals will exacerbate and accelerate environmental destruction and human rights abuses in mineral-rich regions.

At the Climate Innovation Forum 2026, the Forest Declaration Assessment convened a roundtable on how mining and mineral supply chain companies can support the energy transition without reproducing forest loss and rights violations. The discussion brought together participants from civil society, standards bodies, finance, and supply-chain actors, and served as a forum to launch and socialize the Priority Actions for Mining & Mineral Supply Chains under the 2030 Global Forest Vision. This blog summarizes four key takeaways.

1. Transition urgency shouldn’t mask real-world complexities.

Mining as currently practiced, at a global scale, causes real environmental and social harm—including deforestation and forest degradation, alongside a growing number of reported human rights violations. On current trajectories, rising demand for transition minerals will intensify these pressures rather than ease them. This trajectory is not inevitable: forest protection, rights, and accountability are preconditions for a credible and durable transition and should not be traded away against it.

A central complication is that not all mineral demand serves the same purpose. A significant and essential share is driven by the renewable energy transition itself. But a substantial and rising share now stems from other sources—among them AI data centers and militarization—whose social benefit is far more questionable. Collapsing all of this into a single “transition minerals” narrative risks using the legitimacy of clean energy to justify extraction that does little for it.

Given multiple layers of complication within the problem to consider, the main question is therefore not whether to mine, but how to secure the essential metals and minerals a successful renewable energy transition requires without derailing forest and rights goals. That framing pushes the conversation beyond individual mine sites or supply chains to interrogate demand as well as supply: which minerals are genuinely necessary, for what, and at what cost. “Greenwashing” narratives that invoke transition imperatives can excuse weak safeguards while consumption patterns, infrastructure choices, industrial policy, and geopolitics are the wider systems shaping extractive pressure on forests.

2. Standards can complement the law but should not replace strong governance.

Robust standards and assurance systems are important tools for raising ambitions and defining best practice, improving transparency, and helping bridge governance gaps where regulation to protect forests, rights, or territories is weak or poorly enforced. At the same time, voluntary approaches can and should not substitute for public regulation, especially on free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC), land rights, and the protection of “no-go” or restricted areas.

The strongest standards, and the most durable solutions more broadly, are those shaped through genuinely multi-stakeholder processes. Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and civil society need meaningful influence alongside companies and industry actors, not simply a consultative role, if standards and accountability systems are to reflect conditions on the ground and command legitimacy.

3. Investor stewardship is an important and still underused lever.

Investor engagement with mining and mineral supply chain companies is a positive and productive lever for influence. Investors are (or should be) motivated to engage because environmental and human rights impacts of mining constitute material system-level risks with implications for long-term value, stability, and fiduciary duty. This reinforces the case for investors, lenders, and downstream buyers to integrate forest and human rights risks more directly into capital allocation, due diligence, engagement, and sourcing expectations.

Collaborative stewardship is especially important, including stronger links between investors, civil society, and standards bodies, as well as better use of external data and intelligence to identify high-risk geographies, projects, and practices.

4. Transparency should serve accountability and improvement.

Disclosure is a necessary starting point, but not an endpoint in itself. Transparency should serve a clear purpose: surfacing risks, support decision-making, and showing credible progress over time. Many companies are unwilling to disclose the “messy middle” of improvement, and would rather stay silent than invite scrutiny of their imperfect progress. The field would be better served if more companies disclosed candidly about where they are mid-journey. Better data and intelligence, beyond disclosure, are valuable for the same reason—to inform action. Transparency must be paired with civil society oversight and real accountability mechanisms, otherwise information alone will not shift outcomes.

Near-term signals of progress

The next six to twelve months will not be enough to fundamentally shift the trajectory of mining’s impacts on forests and rights. However, feasible and impactful near-term milestones would include:

• clearer expectations on respecting FPIC and Indigenous rights,
• stronger grievance channels and follow-up,
• better disclosure on forest and rights risks,
• more explicit identification (and avoidance) of high-risk and restricted areas,
• greater civil society participation in standards and review processes,
• more ambitious investor engagement grounded in real evidence from affected landscapes.

Critical mineral markets will keep facing supply shocks, both predictable and not. Companies, governments, and lobbyists already use these moments to push their own agendas. We in the forest and rights community should be doing the same and preparing our demands now, so that when the next disruption hits, we’re positioned to promote our solutions.

No single lever or action will solve the hyper-complex issue of mining, transition minerals, forests, and rights. However, a multi-pronged approach combining standards, disclosure, regulation, investor stewardship, and rights-based governance backed by robust multistakeholder collaboration can reinforce each other.

Endorse the Priority Actions

This roundtable was informed by the Priority Actions for Mining & Mineral Supply Chains developed under the 2030 Global Forest Vision, which aim to translate forest goals into practical guidance for supply-chain actors, financiers, and other stakeholders. Organizations interested in endorsing the Priority Actions are invited to express their intention by filling out the endorsement form.

Contact

For questions or follow-up, please contact: Erin D. Matson, Climate Focus: e.matson@climatefocus.com