The benefits of critical minerals travel through global supply chains, while many of the costs are felt locally. Whether mining is fair is shaped not only by how communities are consulted about projects, but by who can influence the decisions made before those projects exist.
Critical minerals are central to the technologies and infrastructure associated with the energy transition, but the global benefits they enable do not automatically translate into better outcomes for the places where they are extracted. Mining can bring investment, jobs and public revenue to producing territories, but whether it does will depend on how it is governed.
Debates about fairer mineral supply chains often focus on consultation once mining projects are proposed. However, consultation is not the whole issue–it is one mechanism through which deeper questions about rights, land, authority and who shapes territorial futures come to the fore. For Indigenous peoples in particular, participation is not simply an opportunity that governments or companies can offer at their discretion. It is grounded in rights, including rights relating to consultation and, in specific circumstances, free, prior and informed consent.
If critical minerals are to support a just transition, we need to pay greater attention to what happens before a mine exists. The question is not whether critical minerals will be mined, but on what and whose terms.
Before extraction begins, several significant decisions are made: where mining may take place, how areas are allocated, what environmental and water data informs planning, and how responsibilities and future benefits are organized. These decisions affect not only companies and governments, but also Indigenous peoples, local communities and subnational authorities whose rights, responsibilities and relationships to land and territory may be directly implicated. Some hold formal rights or decision-making powers by law; others may have limited influence over decisions that will nevertheless shape their futures.
The call for earlier and more inclusive participation is not new, particularly concerning Indigenous rights. It extends beyond consultation on individual projects to questions of cumulative environmental impacts, landscape-level planning and whether affected peoples have a voice in the plans that shape their territories. Yet translating these principles into practice remains difficult, particularly when early decisions involve competing development priorities, institutional responsibilities and economic interests. The challenge is therefore not simply to recognize the value of participation, but to understand why it so often remains limited when consequential decisions are made.
These decisions affect not only companies and governments, but also Indigenous peoples, local communities and subnational authorities whose rights, responsibilities and relationships to land and territory may be directly implicated.
Recent SEI research on mining in Sápmi similarly highlights the need for rights-based impact assessment and proactive land-use planning that enables Indigenous rights-holders to influence decisions before project approvals.
This is not an argument against project-level consultation. It is an argument for extending meaningful participation upstream, into the decisions that establish the conditions under which projects will eventually operate.
Salinas Grandes and the Laguna de Guayatayoc basin in Argentina’s Puna illustrate how disputes over mining extend beyond consultation procedures. Lithium exploration has generated contested questions about Indigenous rights, transparency, land use and who has authority over decisions affecting the basin. In one case, a company obtained an exploration permit in 2023 after a consultation that community representatives say involved only one of two directly affected communities. Provincial authorities maintain that consultation occurred, and a court upheld its legal validity, a ruling now under appeal. The dispute illustrates how meeting formal procedural requirements does not necessarily resolve deeper disagreements over rights, representation and decision-making authority.
In Colombia, where copper development remains at an early stage, there is an opportunity to address governance questions before new mining projects become established. SEI, under the umbrella of the NIR-led MARS program, has contributed technical inputs to discussions with several government, community and private sector actors, including considerations related to sustainability, due diligence, and territorial planning. SEI is also working with partners to prepare stakeholders in Cesar and La Guajira for dialogue ahead of exploration. These processes are underway and their outcomes remain to be seen. Their significance lies in bringing territorial concerns and interests into the conversation, and increasing available reliable evidence, before future projects narrow the choices available.
A related opportunity is emerging in the Pastos Grandes watershed, in Salta. Under MARS, SEI is supporting the co-construction of a water management model that combines hydroclimatic data, local knowledge and independent scientific expertise. The mining company Lithium Argentina, provincial authorities and the Santa Rosa de los Pastos Grandes community have agreed to take part, and a workshop in November 2026 will review the model’s uncertainties together. Those running the process report that participants engaged less out of trust than out of necessity: No single actor could build a credible picture of the watershed alone. Unlike Salinas Grandes, where disputes emerged as exploration advanced, Pastos Grandes is building shared evidence while the process is still taking shape.
Together with the Colombian experience, they raise a practical question: How can governments and other actors create opportunities for affected territories to influence decisions while meaningful choices remain open?
For policymakers, companies, investors and downstream mineral buyers, three questions can help bring this earlier stage of governance into focus.
1. What is being decided now that will be difficult to change later?
This includes the design of bidding rounds, the information used to establish environmental and water baselines, and the institutional arrangements governing future benefits and responsibilities. These decisions deserve scrutiny before individual projects advance.
2. Who can influence these decisions, and who is only invited later?
Participation should extend beyond consultation about a proposed project. Territorial authorities, affected communities, rights holders and relevant knowledge holders need meaningful opportunities to inform decisions that shape their future. Governments must connect these opportunities to the institutions that control those decisions.
Partnerships can open new channels for communities to engage in decisions that formal regulatory processes leave beyond their reach. But participation alone does not make governance more legitimate; rather, legitimacy depends on whether those involved can influence decisions, whether affected populations’ interests are represented, and whether decision-makers are accountable for the outcomes. Legitimacy matters especially where voluntary partnerships risk becoming an alternative to stronger public regulation. The challenge is to use collaboration to widen participation and inform better decisions, without allowing it to substitute for enforceable rights or weaken the case for stronger rules.
3. Whose evidence counts, and who can challenge it?
Environmental data, technical assessments and local knowledge reveal different aspects of a territory and of potential mining impacts. Decision-makers should examine who produces and controls the evidence, how assumptions are scrutinized, and whether information is accessible.
Territorial authorities, affected communities, rights holders and relevant knowledge holders need meaningful opportunities to inform decisions that shape their future.
These questions also matter beyond producing territories. Investors and downstream buyers have a stake in understanding how the conditions for extraction are established, rather than relying exclusively on due diligence once projects are operating. For companies, clearer rules and a shared evidence base set early can reduce uncertainty, delays and conflict later.
Demand for critical minerals is being shaped by electrification, digital infrastructure and defence and security needs. As governments seek to secure supplies, the pressure to accelerate exploration and development makes it increasingly important to scrutinize the decisions that establish the terms of extraction.
The international policy agenda recognizes this challenge. The United Nations Task Force on Critical Energy Transition Minerals, launched in December 2025, coordinates work across the UN system to advance more equitable, transparent and sustainable mineral value chains. The Task Force builds on the recommendations of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals, whose 2024 report set out principles intended to guide mineral value chains towards equity and justice. Two SEI researchers serve as member experts in the Task Force’s technical clusters on value addition and economic diversification, traceability, transparency and accountability, and circularity and material efficiency, bringing evidence from producing territories into these discussions.
Making these principles meaningful requires more than better management of operating mines. It requires governments to open consequential decisions to territorial input, companies to engage and share relevant information early, and investors and buyers to examine how the conditions for extraction are established.
Once the first mines are built, many of the decisions that shape who benefits, who bears the costs and whose knowledge counts will already have been made. A just transition means opening those decisions to the people whose territories are at stake, while there is still time to shape them.
About this work: This perspective draws on the One-SEI program on mining and minerals, which brings together researchers across SEI centres to support a clean energy transition that does not replicate the harms of past extraction. It builds in particular on activities under the Sida-funded MARS programme, led by NIR with SEI as an implementing partner, including work on copper in Colombia and inclusive water management in Argentina. It also draws on wider SEI research on lithium mining and water in the Americas, Indigenous rights and mining in Sweden, and the governance of critical raw material supply chains.
One-SEI program / The ambition of this program is to contribute to a global shift to clean energy that does not transfer harmful extraction patterns.
Perspective / SEI experts highlight the inequalities that must be considered ahead of developing critical minerals mining sites throughout the world.
Journal article / This article uses Indigenous frameworks in proposing indicators aligned with the UN SDGs for lithium mining in Argentina.
Other publication / This document provides a framework for renewable energy developers and communities to ensure positive societal outcomes amid the energy transition.
