Is the critical minerals boom different?

It was late 2021 when I first came across the term critical minerals. I was sitting in a luxury complex in Accra, Ghana, with a group of expats who worked for a mining company, discussing how minerals represented a new opportunity for the country. 

They explained to me that as the energy transition accelerated, building new renewable energy infrastructure would depend on

access to massive amounts of minerals, turning what had long been ordinary commodities into strategic assets.

 

Up until then, I hadn’t thought much about minerals— these materials which are embedded invisibly into our daily lives, from our smartphones and laptops to the batteries that power electric vehicles. However, after a few months in Ghana, my view on these underground materials and their impact on the world economy, politics, and history changed forever.

 

Soon after graduating from college, I came to West Africa as a Watson Fellow to develop an independent journalistic project exploring how collective narratives and events—such as the promise of development or the energy transition— shape individuals’ lives. 

While in Ghana, a country built around the mining industry where gold and minerals played a central role in culture and society, it soon became clear that it was something much bigger than industry. 

Mineral resources were a political and economic force that had shaped the country’s colonial history, entrenched economic underdevelopment, and, to this day, sustained a highly unequal economy dominated by multinationals and foreign capital. 

As I recognized this, a bigger question came to me: were things really different this time? Do minerals really represent an opportunity for Ghana and the dozens of mineral-rich countries in the Global South? More importantly, why, after a history of the resource curse, would the energy transition make things different this time?

Across the Global South, governments increasingly see this moment as different from previous commodity booms. Rather than simply exporting raw materials, many are trying to capture more value from their resources through processing, refining and manufacturing. 

Whether those ambitions will succeed or not remains an open question. Currently, critical minerals are at the center of the development strategies of dozens of countries in the Global South. 

These countries hope to benefit from the increased demand for minerals and the growing interest of major economies in investing in projects that can guarantee them a stable mineral supply for their energy and security needs. The geopolitical competition between China and the West is in their favor. 

From Greenland, where critical minerals have become central to debates over sovereignty and foreign investment, to Indonesia, which has restricted raw nickel exports in an effort to build a domestic processing industry, governments are increasingly treating mineral resources not simply as exports but as strategic assets. 

The question is no longer whether critical minerals matter but whether resource-rich countries can convert this moment of geopolitical attention into long-term economic transformation. 

The Philippines is no exception and stands as an important figure in the critical mineral landscape. As a significant producer of nickel, currently supplying 8.9% of global output and holding 3.7% of the world’s reserves according to the US Geological Survey, the Philippines represents a crucial partner for the United States and major Western economies seeking to

diversify their supply away from China. 

Nickel has become an essential input for electric vehicle batteries and other clean-energy technologies. making supply security a strategic priority for advanced economies. For resource-rich countries, the story is different: they hope to use this increased interest in minerals to shift from being raw-material exporters to capturing greater value and transforming it into long-term economic growth.

Over the past year, the Philippines has strengthened its relations with major economies as part of a new economic and geopolitical strategy. During the recent bilateral strategic dialogues, Washington and Manila have committed to cooperating to secure critical mineral supply chains, including the Luzon Economic Corridor, which aims to increase supply security among the US, Japan, and the Philippines. 

Earlier this year, the Philippines also strengthened its ties with South Korea to deepen collaboration in the critical mineral and nuclear sectors. Manila’s ambition is clear, and the Southeast Asian country no longer wants to be a mineral exporter but

a significant hub for mineral processing and manufacturing. 

However, despite the government’s ambition, turning mineral resources into long-term economic growth may be more challenging than expected. China currently controls the critical minerals value chains, having the majority of control over nickel processing. 

This means that even if the Philippines extracts more nickel, much of the value added—from refining to battery manufacturing—continues to be captured elsewhere. Despite numerous partnerships, the Philippines, like many of its ASEAN counterparts, still does not seem to have a clear industrial policy to translate increasing demand into value capture.

Without a clear vision for domestic processing, technology transfer, skills development or manufacturing, increased geopolitical attention risks benefiting others more than the Philippines itself. 

The elephant in the room is that increased interest does not necessarily translate into greater geopolitical leverage, and something beyond trade deals and partnerships may be needed to turn this into a genuine development opportunity. 

Effective resource governance, well-planned industrial policy strategies, and the implementation of social and environmental

safeguards are just the beginning of a strong battle to counter the powerful influence of highly unequal value chains and geopolitical pressures.

Looking back at my conversations in Ghana, I realize that the important question was never whether minerals would take center stage in the energy transition, but who would really benefit from this techno-economic transformation. 

The important question we should start asking is: who will benefit from this shift, who will capture value, and how will we guarantee that the energy transition does not become a vehicle for further entrenching existing patterns of extractivism and inequalities between the Global North and the Global South?

Gretel Cuevas is a researcher and writer whose work explores the intersection of critical minerals, the energy transition, and economic development. Her research focuses on how resource-rich countries can build more equitable and sustainable futures through better governance, industrial policy, and international cooperation.

She is a researcher at the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge, where she works with the Climate Compatible Growth (CCG) program on research related to critical mineral supply chains, industrial development, and the energy transition. Her work spans collaborations with governments, international organizations, and development partners.

As a Watson Fellow, Gretel conducted field research in mining communities across Africa and Asia. She has also collaborated with the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), as well as governments and civil society organizations in Zambia and Malawi, on issues related to critical minerals, industrial policy, and economic transformation.

Alongside her academic work, Gretel writes essays and fiction exploring the human dimensions of extraction, development, and environmental change.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the author are her own and do not in any way reflect those of Paraluman News.