Europe’s industrial strength was built in a world where globalisation promised limitless access to raw materials. Minerals flowed freely across borders, trade agreements multiplied, and supply chains spanned continents. European manufacturers focused on engineering excellence without worrying about where metals, battery materials, or rare earths came from—or who controlled them.
The Rise of Resource Nationalism
A new era of resource nationalism is reshaping the global market for critical raw materials (CRMs). Countries rich in lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, copper, and rare earths increasingly treat these resources as instruments of national development and geopolitical leverage. From Africa to Latin America, Southeast Asia to Central Asia, governments are rewriting mining laws, imposing export restrictions, demanding local processing, and renegotiating contracts.
For Europe, this shift is an industrial warning: minerals are no longer simply bought—they must be politically negotiated, co-invested in, and strategically secured.
Case Studies: Indonesia, Africa, and Latin America
Indonesia’s ban on unprocessed nickel exports illustrates the power of resource nationalism. The policy forced domestic refining, attracted billions in investment (primarily from China), and reshaped global nickel markets. Today, Indonesia dominates battery-grade nickel production and controls leverage over global supply chains.
Africa presents a similar challenge. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Namibia, Ghana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe increasingly demand domestic processing to generate local value, jobs, and fiscal benefits. China has invested heavily to meet these requirements, while Europe has lagged behind.
In Latin America, the lithium triangle—Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile—demonstrates even stricter resource control. Chile prioritises state participation in key lithium projects; Bolivia tightly manages lithium partnerships; Mexico nationalised its lithium sector. Across the region, governments emphasize environmental protection, local rights, and domestic value addition.
Asia is following suit. Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan are tightening mining laws. The Philippines requires more local nickel processing. India is exploring strategic mineral self-sufficiency. Resource nationalism is no temporary trend—it’s a structural global shift.
Implications for Europe
-
Access Is No Longer Guaranteed: Countries can impose export restrictions, taxes, or preferential policies favoring partners who invest locally. Transactional buying is no longer reliable.
-
Competition Intensifies: China leads with decades of mining partnerships, processing infrastructure, and diplomatic influence. The US accelerates through the Inflation Reduction Act. Europe must compete in regions where rivals are entrenched.
-
Local Processing Demands: Many mineral-rich countries require refining within their borders, undermining Europe’s preference for importing raw materials to process at home.
-
Political Risk to Green Transition: Europe’s green energy and industrial plans depend on materials increasingly politicized abroad. Environmental, social, and governance concerns can delay mining investments.
Europe’s Strategic Response
Recognize Rational Resource Nationalism: Countries seek fair value, long-term development, and sovereignty over resources. Europe must accept this reality and work collaboratively.
Build Partnership Models: Joint ventures, investment in local refining, infrastructure, workforce training, and governance support are essential. Europe should share benefits sustainably, positioning itself as a credible, long-term partner rather than a short-term extractor.
Strengthen Diplomacy: Future resource access depends on political credibility, not market transactions. Europe must engage strategically and consistently for decades.
Invest in Domestic Mining: While imports remain necessary, local production and processing provide resilience, bargaining power, and industrial security.
