We are at a cliff-hanger moment for humanity. Will we manage to unlock the formidable power of transformation that can be sourced from the dirt of earth itself – driving innovation and prosperity? Or will our blind and insatiable thirst for ever more minerals be kryptonite for our future well-being, causing massive inequality and instability, destruction, and despair? The key to navigating this moment is recognizing the complexity we are up against. In this piece, I attempt to explore some of these complexities and root this exploration in some groundbreaking work we have conducted with partners. It should be read as an invitation to explore how we make minerals a paradigm-shifting force for good.

As we battle climate change and shift to green economies, the demand for critical energy transition minerals (CETMs) is set to explode. These minerals are entirely necessary input factors for renewable energy systems and electric vehicles. Global demand for CETMs could quadruple by 2040. This surge presents a significant economic opportunity. The UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that USD 360 billion to USD 450 billion in investment is needed between 2022 and 2030 to meet the 2030 global emission targets. As my colleague Maxwell Gomera has pointed out recently, for mineral-producing countries, these investments could end decades of dependence on international aid.

The UN Secretary-General has recently announced the launch of a High-level Expert Advisory Group to accelerate action on CETMs, aiming to anchor the renewables revolution in justice and equity. The Group will take forward a set of seven guiding principles and five actionable recommendations that the Secretary-General’s Panel on CETMs developed last year.

While the scale of demand and intensity of competition for these resources are new,the challenges of natural resource extraction are not. Mineral-producing nations have made efforts to capture the full value of their mineral resources while upholding human rights and protecting the environment for many years. So, what has gone wrong? Are current approaches failing? Is it time to transformhow we extract natural resources to ensure a just and equitable green economy?

Simply put, there have always been three main debates around mining: on the planet; on prosperity; and on people and peace. With respect to the planet, mining has traditionally harmed nature, affecting water quality, damaging biodiversity, and leaving toxic waste. With regard to prosperity, the “resource curse” has often turned mineral wealth into false hope, enriching only a few while leaving broader populations untouched. Natural resources extraction has also reinforced inequality between countries: A recent report found that no country from Africa or Latin America is a major player in manufacturing or trading cathodes or battery materials. This failure to transform mineral wealth into a diversified economic base exacerbates inequalities, trapping producing countries in dependency while importing nations reap the benefits. Regarding people and peace, mining practices have been linked to human rights violations, including the killings of activists. Between 2015 and 2022, over 36,000 mining-related conflicts were identified worldwide.

The CETM Panel’s guiding principles reflect these different debates and goals well:

Source: Author’s elaboration

In practice, these issues are deeply intertwined. People’s opposition to mining projects can cause significant delays, deterring much-needed capital and hindering the race to net zero. Persistent economic inequality can reduce the motivation for producing countries to pursue sustainable practices as they may prioritize quick revenues to meet immediate needs.

However, these issues have often been dealt with separately. Worse, the three objectives – the planet, prosperity, and people – have sometimes ended up undermining each other, for example by claims such as: if you want prosperity by covering more of the mineral value chain, you need to go for it, and reap the benefits for the planet and people later. Or, conversely, you need to put the planet and people’s rights first, with lasting prosperity as a result.

It is time to rethink the mining space for it to provide simultaneous solutions to the planet, prosperity, and people and peace challenges. Some countries have tried to connect these objectives. The Environmental Governance Programme for Sustainable Natural Resource Management (EGP), launched by the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency with funding from Sida over a decade ago, has worked with twelve countries to integrate environment and human rights into mining governance. A strategic dialogue, organized by UNDP’s Global Policy Center for Governance with the EGP team and stakeholders from eleven EGP programme countries, showed that while progress has been made on combining action on the planet and people, mining programmes cannot be decoupled from prosperity. When asked to focus on one of the guiding principles of the Secretary-General’s Panel on CETMs, most EGP countries from Africa chose the principle on benefit-sharing, value addition, and economic diversification. For mineral-rich countries, this tends to be the dominant objective of mining activities, which may implicitly or explicitly trump the others.

To understand how different objectives are weighed and how to achieve systemic transformation that considers the planet, prosperity, and people simultaneously, our strategic dialogue used the Three Spheres of Transformation framework. This approach proposes practical, political, and personal spheres of transformation and helps manage the political economy of transformations and apply systems thinking. Participants identified practical challenges, including financial constraints, gaps between policy adoption and implementation, a lack of transparency, and limited access to education and training. Political challenges included systemic inequalities, the absence of visionary leadership, party politics, and state capture and corruption, which create an unstable political environment. Personal challenges involve societal attitudes and cultural barriers, including differing views on sustainable development, limited public understanding of mining’s environmental impacts, and the prioritization of short-term gains over long-term benefits.

As policymakers, UN experts, and citizens, we often think of change as technical solutions and institutional reforms. We tend to overlook the importance of systems and structures, such as geopolitical power imbalances and historical experiences. We also do not take seriously enough the role of beliefs, values, and worldviews in shaping systems and influencing solutions.

So, what is the present and future of mining critical minerals? Efforts to reform the mining sector risk supporting only prosperity, the planet, or people objectives, overlooking their synergies and trade-offs. This might lead to incremental change but not the transformation needed.

Can we imagine mineral-producing and importing countries working together to reduce development aid in exchange for collaborating on processing and manufacturing infrastructure in producing countries? Could there be learning between countries and collaboration with civil society on establishing sovereign wealth funds to capture and distribute the added value of mineral resources?

But how will we do this? Who will bring the goals on the planet, prosperity, and people and peace together and how do we connect the practical, the political and the personal? What if we have a way to do this already? Governance can serve as a powerful tool to unite diverse stakeholders, fostering collaboration and leveraging socio-technical innovations to translate the opportunities of CETMs into tangible development benefits. Inclusive, accountable, and effective governance therefore needs to be at the center of the global conversation on CETMs. The work of the anticipated Secretary-General’s High-level Advisory Group offers a timely opportunity to do exactly that.

In taking the Panel on CETMs’ principles and recommendations forward, the new Advisory Group could take a governance approach and discuss:

• How can countries, institutions, and people avoid the temptation to pick one or two of these principles but think of them together, in line with the principles of effectiveness and policy coherence?
• How can countries, institutions, and people get out of their substantive and geographical bubbles and work together on using the principles, fostering effectiveness and collaboration?
• How can we deal with the underlying structures and ensure that countries have an equal seat at the table when taking these principles forward, promoting inclusiveness and participation and leaving no one behind?
• How do we balance the short-term needs of today’s generation with the longer-term needs of future generations when taking the principles forward, supporting inclusiveness and intergenerational equity?

I have tried to chart what I think are the puzzles that need solving, based on our engagement with a range of member States and experts. When it comes to CETMs, objectives on prosperity, the planet, and people and peace are always deeply intertwined. And while there may be practical solutions to every issue, CETM issues will always also require a political and personal perspective. To bring these objectives and perspectives together, we need a governance approach to CETMs.