In an era of increasing geopolitical tension and economic uncertainty, a significant shift is taking place in how resource-rich nations view their mineral wealth. Developing countries with abundant reserves of critical minerals—elements essential to modern technology and the green energy transition—are asserting greater control over these resources at an unprecedented rate. This strategic shift poses substantial challenges for mining companies and reflects the intensifying global competition for materials that have become vital to national security and industrial development.
A Dramatic Surge in Resource Nationalism
According to the latest Resource Nationalism Index (RNI) released by risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft, government intervention in mining and energy sectors has reached record levels. The annual index, which measures state control of economic activity within these crucial sectors across the globe, reveals that 47 countries have experienced increased risk since 2020. Among these nations are 17 major producers of critical minerals—a trend that signals a fundamental restructuring of global mineral supply chains.
“If this momentum continues, disruptions to the supply of critical minerals for renewables, technology, and defence industries are likely,” warns Jimena Blanco, chief analyst at Verisk Maplecroft. “Supply chain risks could drive up costs, slow innovation, and create vulnerabilities in national security and global competitiveness.”
The highest-risk jurisdictions include several major oil and gas producers with established histories of expropriations, nationalizations, and significant tax increases. Venezuela, Russia, Mexico, Kazakhstan, and Iraq all feature among the top ten countries displaying the most concerning levels of resource nationalism, with each seeing dramatic risk escalation over the past five years.
The Perfect Storm: Tariffs, Market Volatility, and Geopolitical Competition
This surge in resource nationalism hasn’t emerged in isolation. Several converging factors have created ideal conditions for mineral-rich nations to reconsider their approach to resource management. Trade tensions, exemplified by fluctuating tariff policies, have demonstrated the volatility of international commerce. Simultaneously, market uncertainties have prompted governments to seek greater stability and control over their most valuable assets.
Against this backdrop, the geopolitical race to secure critical minerals has intensified dramatically. These materials—including cobalt, copper, lithium, and rare earth elements—have become indispensable components in everything from electric vehicle batteries to advanced defense systems. As Western democracies scramble to secure reliable supply chains for these minerals, resource-rich developing nations have recognized their newfound leverage in global negotiations.
Strategic Responses Across the Resource Spectrum
The methods employed by resource-rich nations vary considerably, reflecting different economic priorities and political circumstances. Some countries are pursuing direct state control through nationalization or mandatory state participation in mining ventures. Others have implemented tax increases, stricter local content requirements, or policies designed to develop downstream industries rather than simply exporting raw materials.
Perhaps most notably, many resource-rich nations are adopting strategically non-aligned positions in the emerging global order. By avoiding exclusive alignment with either Western powers or China, these countries maximize their negotiating flexibility and can play competing interests against each other for better terms.
Verisk Maplecroft predicts that this shifting landscape will trigger a wave of policy changes over the next year, affecting both mineral-producing nations and the industrial centers that depend on these resources.
Copper: The Canary in the Coal Mine
The changing risk profile for copper—a metal essential to electrical infrastructure, renewable energy, and countless industrial applications—illustrates the dramatic transformation underway. Verisk Maplecroft’s analysis, which combines mineral production data with the RNI, reveals that over one-third of global copper production now occurs in countries classified as “high” or “very high” risk. This represents a dramatic increase from just 17% in 2016.
This shift is particularly significant given that Chile and Peru, the world’s first and second-largest copper producers respectively, have historically been considered relatively stable mining environments. Both nations have moved toward greater state intervention in their resource sectors in recent years, challenging assumptions about secure copper supplies.
Chile’s Lithium Revolution
Chile’s approach to lithium, another critical mineral essential for battery technology, demonstrates how resource nationalism is transforming established mining jurisdictions. The country, responsible for approximately 24% of global lithium production, announced a dramatic policy shift in April 2023. Under the new framework, all lithium projects must be structured as public-private partnerships with the Chilean state holding a majority stake.
While the initial reaction from the mining sector was one of concern, the industry has demonstrated remarkable adaptability. More than 50 companies have expressed interest in partnering with the Chilean government under these new terms. Currently, seven firms are competing for special contracts, with final selections expected by the end of March 2025.
This development highlights how resource nationalism doesn’t necessarily mean the exclusion of private investment. Rather, it often represents a renegotiation of terms to ensure host countries capture a greater share of the value generated by their natural resources.
Cobalt and Gold: Different Minerals, Similar Trends
Cobalt production, heavily concentrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), presents another dimension of resource nationalism. While the DRC has actually improved its position in the RNI rankings, ongoing conflict in the region threatens to reverse these gains. The country’s cobalt reserves, essential for battery technology, remain subject to significant geopolitical and security risks.
Gold production has also become increasingly exposed to resource nationalism, with approximately 18% now originating from high-risk nations. In a striking example of the challenges facing mining companies, the Malian government recently seized three tonnes of gold amid a dispute with Canadian mining giant Barrick Gold. Such incidents underscore the unpredictable nature of operating in jurisdictions experiencing heightened resource nationalism.
Trade Wars and Mineral Security
Resource nationalism has become increasingly entangled with broader trade tensions, particularly between the United States and China. Beijing has implemented restrictions on rare earth exports to the United States, while Washington has responded by developing strategic mineral stockpiles and creating incentives for domestic production through legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act.
The impact of these tensions extends beyond the direct US-China relationship. In Canada, for instance, fluctuating US tariff policies during the Trump administration revitalized calls for greater domestic investment in energy, power, and mining infrastructure—a trend that continues to influence North American resource development strategies.
Thea Riofrancos, a political science professor and author of the forthcoming book “Extraction: The Frontiers of Green Capitalism,” places these developments within a broader global context. “Importing countries are racing to secure minerals, using a mix of onshoring (encouraging mining within their borders) and bilateral trade agreements,” she explained in a Financial Times editorial.
“Producing countries are implementing export bans, establishing state-owned companies, and in some cases, nationalizing entire mineral sectors. Whether justified by the energy transition, tech industries, or military preparedness, countries everywhere want their piece of the critical mineral pie,” Riofrancos concluded.
The European Union’s Mineral Diplomacy Challenges
The European Union’s experiences further illustrate the complex intersection of resource nationalism, geopolitics, and ethical considerations. Last year, the EU signed a critical minerals agreement with Rwanda, aimed at securing supplies for European industries. However, the European Parliament subsequently voted to suspend the deal, citing Rwanda’s alleged support for armed groups in eastern DRC.
These armed factions have been seizing and exporting valuable minerals including coltan, tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold—creating a direct conflict between Europe’s mineral security needs and its ethical commitments. The situation highlights how resource nationalism increasingly operates within a complex web of regional politics and security considerations.
Meanwhile, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi has proposed a critical minerals agreement with the United States, modeled on a previously negotiated but stalled deal with Ukraine. This initiative demonstrates how mineral-rich nations are actively seeking partnerships that maximize their strategic and economic advantages.
Looking Ahead: A Transformed Landscape
The acceleration of resource nationalism represents a fundamental restructuring of global mineral supply chains with far-reaching implications. For mining companies, the operating environment has become significantly more complex, requiring sophisticated political risk management and greater flexibility in partnership structures.
For importing nations, particularly those dependent on critical minerals for high-tech industries and defense applications, supply chain resilience has emerged as a national security priority. This has driven increased investment in domestic production, recycling technologies, and the development of substitute materials.
Resource-rich developing nations, meanwhile, are seizing a historic opportunity to leverage their natural endowments for greater economic development. By demanding more favorable terms, including technology transfer, local processing requirements, and higher tax contributions, these countries aim to escape the “resource curse” that has historically limited the benefits of their mineral wealth.
As this trend continues to unfold, the global minerals landscape will likely see further fragmentation along geopolitical lines, increased price volatility, and a fundamental reconsideration of what constitutes a stable and secure supply chain. For industries dependent on these materials—from renewable energy to consumer electronics to defense—adapting to this new reality has become an essential business imperative.
The era of easy access to critical minerals appears to be ending, replaced by a more complex, politically charged environment that will reshape industrial strategies and international relations for decades to come.
Acknowledgment: This article was written with the help of AI, which also assisted in research, drafting, editing, and formatting this current version.
