Mineral supply for sustainable development requires resource governance

  • Nature volume 543, pages 367372 (16 March 2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nature21359
  • Download Citation


Successful delivery of the United Nations sustainable development goals and implementation of the Paris Agreement requires technologies that utilize a wide range of minerals in vast quantities. Metal recycling and technological change will contribute to sustaining supply, but mining must continue and grow for the foreseeable future to ensure that such minerals remain available to industry. New links are needed between existing institutional frameworks to oversee responsible sourcing of minerals, trajectories for mineral exploration, environmental practices, and consumer awareness of the effects of consumption. Here we present, through analysis of a comprehensive set of data and demand forecasts, an interdisciplinary perspective on how best to ensure ecologically viable continuity of global mineral supply over the coming decades.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    Brussels steel summit fails to find answer to oversupply problem. The Guardian (18 April 2016; accessed June 2016)

  2. 2.

    UNFPA Revision of Population Prospects (United Nations, 2015)

  3. 3.

    UNFCCC Adoption of the Paris Agreement by the President: Paris Climate Change Conference. (United Nations, 2015); (accessed August, 2016)

  4. 4.

    , & Metals for a low-carbon society. Nat. Geosci. 6, 894–896 (2013)

  5. 5.

    et al. Evaluating rare earth element availability: a case with revolutionary demand from clean technologies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 3406–3414 (2012). Provides detailed analysis of the rapid projected rise in rare-earth mineral demand over the next three decades as a function of the growth in clean energy technologies.

  6. 6.

    , , , & Materials Critical to the Energy Industry (BP Publications, 2014)

  7. 7.

    & Towards greener and more sustainable batteries for electrical energy storage. Nat. Chem. 7, 19–29 (2014)

  8. 8.

    et al. Multi-scale governance of sustainable natural resource use — challenges and opportunities for monitoring and institutional development at the national and global level. Sustainability 8, 778 (2016)

  9. 9.

    Brazil’s mining tragedy: was it a preventable disaster? The Guardian (25 November 2015; accessed August 2016)

  10. 10.

    European Commission. Report on Critical Raw Materials for the EU (European Commission, 2014)

  11. 11.

    , , & On the materials basis of modern society. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6295–6300 (2015)

  12. 12.

    , , , & Critical Metals in Strategic Energy Technologies: Assessing Rare Metals as Supply-Chain Bottlenecks in Low-Carbon Energy Technologies. JRC Scientific and Technical Report, EUR 24884 EN-2011. (European Union, 2011)

  13. 13.

    , & Assessing the supply potential of high-tech metals — a general method. Resour. Policy 46, 45–58 (2015). Presents a novel methodology for estimating supply using Monte Carlo type statistical simulations of repeated recovery of technology metals from product supply chains.

  14. 14.

    International Resource Panel. Metals Recycling: Opportunities, Limits and Infrastructure (UNEP, Nairobi, 2007)

  15. 15.

    , , & Copper demand, supply, and associated energy use to 2050. Glob. Environ. Change 39, 305–315 (2016)

  16. 16.

    The World Copper Fact Book (International Copper Study Group, 2015); (accessed August 2016)

  17. 17.

    et al. Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business costs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7576–7581 (2014). An evaluative study of the economic cost of social conflict estimated using a detailed analysis of mining projects worldwide through interviews with managers

  18. 18.

    & Environmental Diplomacy: Negotiating More Effective International Agreements (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014)

  19. 19.

    & Earth’s copper resources estimated from tectonic diffusion of porphyry copper deposits. Geology 36, 255–258 (2008)

  20. 20.

    USGSAnnual Review 2015: Exploration Review (accessed February 2017)

  21. 21.

    , & Mineral resources: reserves, peak production and the future. Resources 5, 14 (2016)

  22. 22.

    , , & Interrogating the circular economy: the moral economy of resource recovery in the EU. Econ. Soc. 44, 218–243 (2015)

  23. 23.

    Natural Resource Governance Institute. Resource governance index: methodology. (accessed August 2016)

  24. 24.

    , & Tracking effective measures for closed-loop recycling of automobile steel in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycling 87, 65–71 (2014)

  25. 25.

    , & (eds) Factor X, Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science (Springer, 2013)

  26. 26.

    , & Stock dynamics and emission pathways of the global aluminium cycle. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 338–342 (2012)

  27. 27.

    et al. What do we know about metal recycling rates? J. Ind. Ecol. 15, 355–366 (2011)

  28. 28.

    , , , & Criticality of metals and metalloids. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 4257–4262 (2015). A comprehensive evaluation of key limiting factors that lead to potential mineral security concerns from the point of view of mineral demand and supply bottlenecks

  29. 29.

    Sustainable Use of Natural Resources (Science and Implementation Plan, Security of Supply of Mineral Resources (SoS Minerals) Research Programme 2012–2017, Natural Environment Research Council, UK, 2013);

  30. 30.

    & Briefing: minerals security of supply: a geological perspective. Proc. ICE Waste Resour. Management 165, 171–173 (2012)

  31. 31.

    European Commission. Report of the Ad hoc Working Group on Defining Critical Raw Materials (European Commission Report on Critical Raw Materials for the EU, European Commission, 2014)

  32. 32.

    National Science and Technology Council. Assessment of Critical Minerals: Screening Methodology and Initial Application (The White House, 2016);

  33. 33.

    British Geological Survey. World Mineral Production 2006–10 (British Geological Survey, 2012)

  34. 34.

    , , & Raw material criticality in the context of classical risk assessment. Resour. Policy 44, 35–46 (2015)

  35. 35.

    & in Factor X, Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science (eds, & ) Ch. 7 (Springer, 2013)

  36. 36.

    , , & The set-up of an international agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of geologically scarce mineral resources. Resour. Policy 49, 92–101 (2016). Bold article that makes the case for an international agreement on minerals based on both intergenerational equity and resource conservation arguments with a suggested quota development model.

  37. 37.

    , , , & Navigating the New Normal: China and Global Resource Governance (Chatham House and Development Research Centre of the Chinese State Council, 2015);

  38. 38.

    The Advent of the United Nations Environment Assembly. Insights from the American Society of International Law 19, (2015)

  39. 39.

    et al. Analytical fingerprint for tantalum ores from African deposits. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 11, 2452 (2009)

  40. 40.

    et al. in Non-Renewable Resource Issues: Geoscientific and Societal Challenges (eds & ) Ch. 10 (Springer, 2012)

  41. 41.

    Integrating Public Health Concerns into Patent Legislation in Developing Countries (The South Centre, Geneva, 2000)

  42. 42.

    Lunar resources: a review. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 39, 137–167 (2015)

  43. 43.

    Developing a law of asteroids: constants, variables, and alternatives. Columbia J. Transnatl. Law 54, 827–872 (2015)

  44. 44.

    , & Climate and energy challenges for materials science. Nat. Mater. 15, 117–120 (2016)

  45. 45.

    Coming clean. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 93–95 (2015)

  46. 46.

    International Resource Panel. Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impact from Economic Growth (UNEP, 2011)

  47. 47.

    International Resource Panel. Metal Stocks in Society: Scientific Synthesis (UNEP, 2010)

  48. 48.

    International Resource Panel. Recycling Rates of Metals: A Status Report (UNEP, 2011)

  49. 49.

    International Resource Panel. Metals Recycling: Opportunities, Limits, Infrastructure (UNEP, 2013)

  50. 50.

    International Resource Panel. Environmental Risks and Challenges of Anthropogenic Metal Flows and Cycles (UNEP, 2015)

  51. 51.

    International Resource Panel. Estimating Long-run Geological Stocks of Metals (UNEP, 2011)

  52. 52.

    International Resource Panel. Global Material Flow and Resource Productivity (UNEP, 2016)

Download references


The authors are an interdisciplinary group, operating under the Resourcing Future Generations initiative of the International Union of Geological Sciences, the International Council for Science Unions and UNESCO. D. Nyanganyura of the International Council for Science and F. Masotti of Vale Corporation provided comments that led to this Perspective. S. Mohr of the University of Technology Sydney assisted with the model output results presented. Financial support provided by UNESCO, IUGS and ICSU, and logistical support provided by the Namibian Geological Survey, is acknowledged.

Author information


  1. University of Delaware, College of Earth, Ocean and Environment, Newark, Delaware, USA

    • Saleem H. Ali
  2. University of Queensland, Sustainable Minerals Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    • Saleem H. Ali
  3. University of Vermont, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics, Burlington, Vermont, USA

    • Saleem H. Ali
  4. University of Technology Sydney, Institute for Sustainable Futures, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    • Damien Giurco
  5. Institut des Sciences de la Terre, University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

    • Nicholas Arndt
    •  & Olivier Vidal
  6. Geological Society of London, London, UK

    • Edmund Nickless
  7. Graham Brown Consulting, Buckland, Buckinghamshire, UK

    • Graham Brown
  8. IUGS/IAGC Commission on Global Geochemical Baselines and EuroGeoSurveys, Athens, Greece

    • Alecos Demetriades
  9. University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

    • Judith Kinnaird
  10. University of Para, Belem, Brazil

    • Ray Durrheim
    •  & Maria Amélia Enriquez
  11. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    • Anna Littleboy
  12. US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA

    • Lawrence D. Meinert
  13. Potsdam University and International Union for Geological Sciences, Potsdam, Germany

    • Roland Oberhänsli
  14. United Nations Environment Programme, Bangkok, Thailand

    • Janet Salem
  15. MinEx Consulting, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    • Richard Schodde
  16. University of Western Australia, Centre for Exploration Targeting, Perth, Western Australia, Australia

    • Richard Schodde
  17. Namibian Uranium Institute, Swakopmund, Namibia

    • Gabi Schneider
  18. Newcastle University, London Campus, London, UK

    • Natalia Yakovleva


  1. Search for Saleem H. Ali in:

  2. Search for Damien Giurco in:

  3. Search for Nicholas Arndt in:

  4. Search for Edmund Nickless in:

  5. Search for Graham Brown in:

  6. Search for Alecos Demetriades in:

  7. Search for Ray Durrheim in:

  8. Search for Maria Amélia Enriquez in:

  9. Search for Judith Kinnaird in:

  10. Search for Anna Littleboy in:

  11. Search for Lawrence D. Meinert in:

  12. Search for Roland Oberhänsli in:

  13. Search for Janet Salem in:

  14. Search for Richard Schodde in:

  15. Search for Gabi Schneider in:

  16. Search for Olivier Vidal in:

  17. Search for Natalia Yakovleva in:


S.H.A. designed and synthesized the written Perspective with N.A. and D.G.; E.N. led S.H.A., D.G., N.A., R.O., L.M., A.D., M.A.E., J.S., G.B., N.Y., A.L., G.S., J.K. and R.D. to develop the analytical framework and policy response recommendations through consensus; O.V. and N.A. contributed data for Fig. 1 and for material in Supplementary Information SI-1; D.G. contributed material in Supplementary Information SI-2; R.S. contributed data for Figs 2 and 3 and material in Supplementary Information SI-4. A.D. contributed material in Supplementary Information SI-5 and provided commentary on geochemical database and other existing tools and their data deficits. M.A.E. and J.S. prepared Box 1.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saleem H. Ali.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks J. Gutzmer, S. Kesler and B. Reck for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures, Supplementary Tables and additional references.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.