As the global demand for critical minerals ramps up, a new report highlights the potential neglect of human needs in the rush to secure these resources. Published in the journal Nature, the report argues that a minerals strategy focused solely on national security may exacerbate inequalities worldwide, particularly for low- and middle-income countries.
The term “critical minerals” originated from military strategy, denoting materials essential for a nation’s economy or defense that are susceptible to supply disruptions. The phrase gained traction following a diplomatic conflict between China and Japan in 2010, which impacted rare earth exports. Since then, nations like the United States, the European Union, and Australia have developed lists of minerals they consider critical and devised strategies to secure them.
Unfortunately, this focus has led to a mischaracterization of critical minerals, often conflating them with minerals necessary for renewable energy technologies. In reality, many “critical minerals” are not directly related to energy transitions, while essential energy transition minerals frequently do not appear on these lists. This narrow definition limits discussions to geopolitical and national security concerns.
To achieve a truly sustainable world, it is crucial to broaden the conversation to encompass the mineral security needs of all humanity. Many regions, particularly in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia, export raw materials yet struggle to access the mineral-based products necessary for their own development.
Shifting Focus from National to Human Security
Historically, natural resources have been framed through a national security lens. However, the understanding of these resources has evolved, particularly with the contributions of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, who reframed food security in the 1990s from a supply issue to one of access and affordability. A similar shift is needed for minerals.
The UQ Sustainable Mineral Institute defines mineral security as the state in which all individuals have affordable access to the minerals and mineral products essential for human development—covering shelter, mobility, communication, energy, and sustenance.
This human-centered approach does not detract from national strategies; rather, it complements them. Development agencies should integrate minerals into poverty reduction plans. Governments are encouraged to realign geological surveys and industrial policies to prioritize domestic needs over export targets. Additionally, international partnerships should be reciprocal, ensuring that nations seeking secure critical minerals also support the mineral security needs of their suppliers.
Minerals and the Sustainable Development Agenda
The United Nations adopted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015 to eliminate poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all. Surprisingly, minerals are notably absent from this comprehensive framework, which spans over 15,000 words. This omission has significant implications, as overseas development assistance to the mineral sector has dropped to just 0.2 percent of global aid by 2021.
This gap illustrates a broader issue: minerals are often viewed as problems requiring governance rather than as solutions to human needs. While mining poses environmental and social challenges, other sectors, such as agriculture and energy, have shifted their focus to prioritize people. It is time to treat minerals with the same human-centered approach.
If one were to evaluate which minerals genuinely lift people out of poverty, the resulting list would likely differ markedly from those currently guiding global policies. The emphasis should be on access, affordability, and sufficiency, rather than solely on supply chain resilience. Ultimately, minerals are not merely components of technology; they are fundamental to human dignity.
For a just and sustainable future, the question must shift from identifying which minerals are critical for the few to understanding which minerals are essential for everyone.
