New critical minerals race refocuses attention on old accountability issues

As the scramble for critical minerals gathers pace, experts warn against repeating past mistakes, when extraction left countries and communities without the development gains they might otherwise have expected. In Geneva, across the lake from some of the world’s most consequential commodity trading firms, government authorities, international organisations, mining officials and civil society members met at the Palais des Nations this week to exchange notes on building sustainable mineral supply chains as the race for critical minerals heats up.

With geopolitical tensions increasingly centred on control over mineral production and sourcing, resource-rich countries have faced immense pressure from global powers to conclude quick deals, risking a repeat of the historic imbalances. Earlier this year, the US proposed a $2 billion health aid deal with Zambia, tying it to access to the country’s minerals, before dropping the condition in an agreement signed earlier this month.

Lusaka says a separate deal on minerals is being negotiated. “The speed of these deals can often come at the cost of scrutiny,” Alex Malden, policy manager and anti-corruption lead at the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative, told delegates at the annual meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining (IGF).

He added that agreements often involve a small number of parties and fail to consider environmental and social impact assessments, as well as conflicts in mining-affected communities. Developing countries’ own interest in benefitting from the minerals race is often lost in the narrative, obscured by the US and China’s competing interests for access to minerals needed for data centres, artificial intelligence, military hardware, and the energy transition.

Critical minerals deals may provide important opportunities for producing countries to address infrastructure gaps, build industrial capacity and fiscal resilience, and support governments’ wider economic priorities. But those opportunities have long been missed. Africa, for example, a major producer of critical minerals, accounts for 12 per cent of all global mineral exports, yet captures only four per cent of the value embedded in supply chains, according to the UN trade and development agency (Unctad).

The International Energy Agency (IEA), meanwhile, predicts that despite demand for the mineral expected to triple by 2030, there will be no major diversification in global mineral supply chains. Shifts underway Over the last 25 years, the number of countries with mining legislation requiring benefit-sharing has grown exponentially, from fewer than 20 to more than 100, according to Brendan Schwartz, executive director of Sustainable Development Strategies Group, a policy action think tank.

He said this matters because development efforts in mining communities went from being voluntary to involving the sharing of royalties through national and local taxation or through national or local development funds. Read more: In the critical mineral race, UN body highlights tools for fairer deals Some of that legislation can be found in the African Mining Legislation Atlas , an initiative developed as a free online platform compiling mining codes and regulations from 53 countries in the region, which allows governments and students to learn from other countries' practices, compare legislation across the continent, and identify measures that could contribute to sustainable development.

Senegal was one case study of how the legal repertoire was used. Rokhaya Samba Diene, director general of Senegal’s National Geological Survey, explains where laws were benchmarked in terms of strategy. However, “we realised that from one country to another, the definitions vary and the idea was not to cut and paste what works in one country and use it for another.” Last year, African Union member states went a step further and adopted the African Green Mineral Strategy.

The approach was based on developing human and technological capabilities in the sector and strategic value chains – especially in batteries, electric vehicles and renewable energy for infrastructure –, and by leaning on regional cooperation. “More and more states are refusing to simply transport raw materials,” said Diene, noting that the AU’s strategy is echoed in her country’s legislation.

What is critical? At a time when, according to the IEA’s 2026 Global Critical Minerals Outlook , prices for base minerals, such as copper, nickel and tin, have jumped by a third since early 2026 till September, and strategic minor minerals have more than doubled, some mineral-rich countries, as well as countries where processing takes place, have established their own critical minerals lists.

The US, China and the European Union have established lists based on how critical minerals are deemed within the geopolitical context and in terms of supply chain risks. In a number of developing countries, the lists have gone beyond criticality to include development considerations, adding value to supply chains, and ways to capitalise on the current global boom.

They often include restrictions such as export bans, as Indonesia did on nickel, forcing foreign firms to build refining facilities there, or export quotas and licensing. Mohamed Sadiq, director of the national Critical Mineral Mission at India’s mining ministry, presented a list that included both India's mineral reserves and those it needs to achieve its economic and strategic goals through its current and future processing capacity.

India, he explained, had identified minerals it could recover through recycling of “economic importance, energy transition minerals, minerals used in fertilisers, electronics and other strategic sectors.” Lessons from the past Gold, often considered a strategic mineral by countries and one that US policy has increasingly identified as critical, has often delivered limited benefits to producer countries’ development.

In many developing countries where it is produced, there has historically been little genuine community consultation, with issues like land rights and environmental abuses at times giving way to social unrest. Read also: Behind Bolivia’s green image: Indigenous groups warn gold mining is endangering their existence Peru, the world’s fifth-largest gold producer, as well as third biggest copper producer, lost nearly $32bn over the past three decades due to Indigenous community conflicts, in lost productivity and capital losses at large-scale mines, according to an independent study .

The soaring price of the metal, critical for AI hardware and energy transition applications such as solar panels and electric vehicles, has spurred informal and unregulated production, which has risen by 30 per cent over the past decade. Illegal gold accounts for 20 per cent of global production, resulting in lost state revenues and development opportunities.

Read more: The UN is helping Filipino gold miners quit toxic mercury – it’s harder than it looks Referring to informal gold mining as if it were a new trend, Nirali Shah, sustainability and responsible sourcing director at the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA), whose members include traders, banks and refiners, underscored “what used to be simple supply chains of large-scale mining to traditional refining hubs is becoming a lot more complex”.

LBMA is currently at the centre of a court case in London, where it is being held responsible for human rights abuses by the families of two Tanzanian artisanal miners shot at a gold mine where one of its members had sourced gold. The association denies the charges against it. “We advance standards through our responsible gold guidance,” she said.

“There is only so much that we can do from an LBMA perspective to set standards and expectations for the London market.” Civil society organisations globally have long urged miners, refiners and governments to do more to tackle environmental and social abuses that have plagued the gold supply chain.

Those same problems have since surfaced in critical mineral supply chains, most notably cobalt. Over 70 per cent of the mineral is sourced in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where its extraction has involved issues such as widespread deforestation, water and soil contamination, community displacement and the employment of thousands of children and underpaid workers operating informally.

For now, Schwartz says that much of the mining legislation is being “torn up from Canada to Indonesia, creating this category of national strategic project, where suddenly none of the rules apply”. Geneva-based commodities traders, meanwhile, have also been joining the race. Mercuria, together with Zug-headquartered Glencore, each committed $500 million to help secure US access to critical minerals, while Trafigura is working on a gold-sourcing programme in Venezuela for US markets.

“We need to go faster, faster, faster, with less time for community benefits,” Schwartz observed. “In the end, that is not going to work.”