Mining Technology

Demand for critical minerals is on the rise, with global extraction projected to increase by more than 60% by 2060. Geopolitical competition over supply chains is intensifying, with new tariffs and export barriers emerging while nations increasingly pursue protectionist strategies aimed at securing domestic production and strategic reserves.

Yet in this landscape of resource nationalism, another transformative force is gaining ground: community control.

More than half of the materials needed for the clean energy transition are located on or near indigenous lands, making these territories a crucial battleground in the global minerals landscape.

Historically excluded from conversations on land and resource ownership, these populations now are pushing for co-ownership, governance and long-term economic participation – reframing mining as a question not only of compensation but of mineral sovereignty.

Globally, indigenous groups are pushing for equity stakes in mining projects and updated legislation to enshrine their rights in law. Mining companies, in turn, are discovering that these partnerships are not just ethical imperatives but operational advantages.

These cases point to a new reality: indigenous inclusion is no longer a nice-to-have but rather a core business and governance principle that is reshaping how mines operate.

The question of indigenous land rights is one that has long made headlines in Australia.

The nation has a historically chequered relationship with its indigenous communities, who are typically not party to decisions around extraction sites. The situation came to something of a head with Rio Tinto’s destruction of the Juukan Gorge caves in Western Australia for mining development in 2020.

While full regulatory overhaul is some way away, industry attitudes are shifting, and there is a renewed push for greater cooperation. Australia’s Critical Minerals Strategy now explicitly commits to stronger First Nations engagement as part of building domestic supply chains.

The need for community alignment is also a business imperative as more than half of Australia’s clean energy materials lie within formally recognised indigenous lands, a figure that rises to nearly 80% when land under unresolved native title claims is included.

“Mining does not operate in isolation from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights and interests,” Tania Constable, CEO of the Minerals Council of Australia, tells Mining Technology. “For the industry, this has meant moving well beyond transactional consultation.”

According to Constable, indigenous engagement influences everything from project development and exploration programmes to heritage protection, promotion and environmental management.

In Australia, the most successful projects are now those where indigenous participation is actively included from an operation’s inception.

“The most credible examples are where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation is not treated as a parallel process but embedded directly into how mining activity is delivered,” Constable says.

For instance, Gulkula Mining in the Northern Territory is the first indigenous-owned and operated bauxite mine in the world.

“Gulkula is about Aboriginal people determining how mining occurs in their country, how revenue is reinvested and how economic development aligns with cultural and community priorities,” Constable explains.

The benefits are practical: more predictable delivery, clearer environmental outcomes and reduced risk of disruption.

While a willingness to engage indigenous communities is evident, Mikaela Jade, CEO of indigenous social enterprise Indigital, says one of the biggest hurdles still to overcome is better communication strategies.

“Across the mining life cycle, there are multiple consultants involved in social and environmental impact processes, but assessments often miss where cultural legitimacy and relational authority actually sit: with Elders and cultural practitioners. Too often, the very people who should be shaping how mining unfolds on Country are sidelined,” she says.

For Jade, meaningful progress requires structural change rather than incremental adjustment.

“We can’t change where mineral deposits are – but we can change how communities participate. First Nations knowledge systems must stand as equal partners in shaping what happens on Country.”

Constable says effective reform should also look to enhance governance standards. Existing frameworks should, she says, be improved, while clearer and more consistent cultural heritage settings and governance arrangements are needed to include First Nation communities across the whole life of a project.

If done right, the outcomes could be wide-ranging and long-lasting.

“Mining is uniquely positioned to have community impact,” Jade says. “Operations last decades, sometimes a century. If we get this right, mining can become a model for how communities and industry grow together.”

As demand for critical minerals accelerates, indigenous collaboration is proving to be not just a social governance requirement, but also, as van Alphen puts it, “good business practice and a competitive advantage”. Projects that fail to include community increasingly face protests, approval delays and even reputational damage. Conversely, those that embed indigenous ownership and knowledge from the outset report improved environmental standards, operational stability and investor confidence.

Although this shift is unfolding unevenly across jurisdictions, community-driven resource nationalism is redistributing sovereignty between governments, companies and the original custodians of land. In doing so, it is also redefining what long-term success looks like in mining.

Canada: a blueprint for indigenous Co-ownership

Canada provides another successful example of indigenous integration into mining development.

Over the past few decades, First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities have become increasingly vocal in demanding not only economic and social benefits but ownership and governance roles in major projects. This inclusion has become particularly crucial as provinces such as Saskatchewan are repositioned as future hubs for materials including lithium.

“Thirty or 40 years ago you could set up a mine in Canada without any reference to Aboriginal folks at all,” Ken Coates, professor of Indigenous Governance at Yukon University, tells Mining Technology. “Indigenous people got no benefit from mining while bearing the consequences of environmental degradation. That legacy fostered deep distrust but it also led to a series of land reforms.”

Modern treaties across Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Labrador and Northern Quebec now require mining companies to deliver jobs, training and financial returns to First Nations, while rehabilitation efforts increasingly include local indigenous workers.

However, the most significant shift, Coates argues, is the rise of indigenous equity participation.

“We now have thousands of First Nation companies doing work for resource projects – and something we never expected to see: growing demand for part ownership,” he says.

One example is Yukon’s Minto mine. Closed for financial reasons, the site is set to be reopened by a local First Nations group. In northern Manitoba, Alamos Gold has partnered with local communities to co-design workforce strategies and economic modelling to support long-term regional development.

Indigenous involvement is also reshaping environmental governance. Projects are seeing greater oversight of water use, tailings management and land rehabilitation, while traditional ecological knowledge is increasingly incorporated into monitoring systems.

For Coates, the commercial incentive is clear.

“Mining companies have realised that First Nations collaboration is just good business,” he says. “If you do it because you have to, you will do it poorly, but if you do it because it makes you a more successful company, you will do it better.”

Each successful partnership, Coates notes, sets a new precedent for others to follow. Sámi leaders in Scandinavia, where indigenous rights remain weaker, have sought guidance from Canadian communities on adopting similar governance models.

Indeed, many companies now view indigenous collaboration not as a regulatory burden but as a source of local expertise, reputational value and long-term commercial advantage.

Chile: lithium, water and indigenous authority

If Canada represents a mature model of indigenous co-ownership, Chile illustrates how quickly that model is spreading, even in regions historically marked by indigenous-miner conflict.

Chile sits at the heart of the global lithium race, home to the world’s largest proven lithium deposits. Yet, a majority of this material lies beneath the salt flats of the Atacama Desert – ancestral territory of the Lickanantay and Quechua indigenous communities.

An area defined by fragile ecosystems and water stress, lithium extraction has historically fuelled tensions over water use, ecosystem degradation and cultural preservation. However, recent projects suggest a shift in approach.

Chile’s largest miners, Codelco and SQM, are in negotiations to give Lickanantay people a more active role in upcoming mines. Meanwhile, Canadian miner Wealth Minerals is advancing its Kuska Lithium Project in partnership with the Quechua community of Ollagüe, granting a 5% equity stake and board representation.

In January, Chile’s Ministry of Mining approved the project’s Special Lithium Operating Contract.

Henk van Alphen, CEO of Wealth Minerals, tells Mining Technology that the approval signals not just regulatory progress but a validation of a development model built around indigenous partnership.

“Consultation alone doesn’t create alignment. Ownership does,” he says. “The Quechua community is not an external stakeholder. They are a shareholder, a board participant and a decision-maker. That structure creates shared accountability from day one.”

The inclusion of Quechua perspectives has already influenced project decisions such as scale, sequencing and safeguards, as well as environmental planning and land-use considerations. In particular, van Alphen says, it has shaped the project’s approach to water stewardship.

Rather than relying on traditional evaporation ponds, the project is using direct lithium extraction technologies designed to reduce water consumption. Environmental monitoring, hydrology and ecosystem protection frameworks are also being developed alongside the community.

“Water is the defining issue in the Atacama. Ignoring that reality is not an option,” van Alphen says.

While deeper indigenous involvement (and expensive environmental standards) have previously been perceived as a potential cost risk, community knowledge of land and water systems is increasingly recognised as an asset in project design and risk management.

“More than half of critical mineral projects globally are located on or near indigenous lands,” van Alphen says. “Projects that treat communities as obstacles will struggle. Projects that treat them as partners will move faster, last longer and face fewer disruptions.”