How to improve global mineral governance

An unlicensed mining operation in Toboali, on the southern shores of the island of Bangka, Indonesia, in April 2021 | REUTERS

By Hasrul Hanif
Project Syndicate

Nov 1, 2026

YOGYAKARTA, Indonesia – Interdependence may have been one of the key themes going into this year’s annual meeting of the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development (IGF), held in Geneva on Oct. 12 to Oct. 14, but competition between countries to secure transition minerals remains intense. This scramble could have dire consequences for mineral-producing countries if it undermines sustainability standards and prevents equitable cost- and benefit-sharing between and within countries.

The International Energy Agency reported in its 2026 Global Critical Minerals Outlook that overall demand for critical minerals is expected to almost double by 2040 under its Stated Policies Scenario. Mineral-rich countries, aware of the “resource curse,” are seeking ways to retain control over their reserves. In a bid to promote domestic value addition and meet their economic-development objectives, many of these countries are pursuing export bans on critical raw materials.

But Indonesia’s experience as one of the first countries to implement such a ban shows that downstream industrialization is not a cure-all. It can come with substantial environmental and social costs, and the benefits are not always shared equitably with the local communities that often bear the greatest burden of extraction and processing.

In a time of both misinformation and too much information,
quality journalism is more crucial than ever.
By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

SUBSCRIBE NOW