Strategic Alliances or Strategic Dependence? New Study Warns of Critical Mineral Fragility without Tight Alliances

Highlights

• China, DRC, Indonesia, and Chile dominate critical raw material production, creating significant geopolitical and supply chain vulnerabilities.
• International strategic alliances are crucial for diversifying CRM access, enhancing transparency, and protecting against potential supply disruptions.
• Future clean energy success requires collaborative, coordinated approaches to mineral resource management, not competitive unilateral strategies.

---

A recent paper by Adrian Lucian Kanovici, Bucharest University of Economic Studies (opens in a new tab), and Daniel Bulin, Romanian Academy (opens in a new tab),  delivers a sharp assessment of the growing risks embedded in global critical raw material (CRM) supply chains—and argues that only bold international partnerships can prevent supply disruptions from crippling the green and digital transitions.

The authors propose that international partnerships are crucial for mitigating systemic risks stemming from the geographic and geopolitical concentration of CRM production. The central hypothesis is that strategic alliances can diversify access, enhance transparency, and buffer supply chains against shocks from conflict, natural disasters, or resource nationalism.

Findings: Global Risk, Concentrated Supply, Geopolitical Stakes

Kanovici and Bulin's review confirms alarming concentrations of CRM production. For instance:

• China controls 68.6% of rare earth production and 80.8% of global tungsten output.
• The DRC holds 73.9% of global cobalt production, a cornerstone mineral for EV batteries.
• Indonesia dominates nickel, while Chile anchors global lithium and copper reserves.

The paper highlights coordinated policy responses—such as the EU's Critical Raw Materials Act (2024/1252) and _Strategic Projects Portfolio_—and evaluates bilateral partnerships with Canada, Namibia, Australia, and Japan. The U.S., meanwhile, has launched strategic alliances with Ukraine, Canada, and Australia under the Minerals Security Partnership framework.

Limitations: Policy Overreach, Effectiveness Unproven

While rich in data and diplomatic context, the study stops short of evaluating the actual effectiveness of these partnerships in practice. It also lightly addresses the environmental and social consequences of expanding mining in fragile states, and does not engage with China’s evolving counter-strategies, such as its revised Mineral Resources Law.

Conclusion and Implications: Alliances Are No Longer Optional

The study concludes that CRMs are now geopolitical flashpoints, and that partnerships must be more than MoUs—they must deliver infrastructure, investment, and equitable returns. As demand soars, coordination—not competition—may define strategic access to minerals. The authors urge greater scrutiny of unilateral moves, such as the Trump administration's “Offshore Critical Minerals” order, warning that fragmentation could deepen vulnerabilities.

In short, the global clean energy future may hinge not just on mining more—but on mining smarter, and together.

—

Source: Kanovici A.L. & Bulin D. (2025). The Role of International Partnerships and Global Alliances for Securing Critical Raw Mineral Supply Chains. Bucharest University of Economic Studies & Romanian Academy.