Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 exposed all the risks of European Union countries’ dependence on a major source of gas supply — and as a result, gas prices skyrocketed.
The EU’s response to Russian blackmail was the REPowerEU program, designed to accelerate the transition not only from Russian gas but from fossil fuels in general through greater energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy sources.
The EU is not alone in this transition — countries around the world are slowly increasing the share of renewables in electricity production. According to the International Energy Agency, global renewable electricity generation is forecast to increase by almost 90% by 2030 from 2023.
However, escaping one trap could lead to falling into another. Greater use of renewable energy sources will require more production of equipment such as solar panels, wind turbines, heat pumps, and batteries. Their manufacturing depends on other natural resources — critical minerals such as lithium, graphite, nickel, cobalt, and copper — which come with their own environmental, social, and geopolitical concerns, from chemical pollution to forced labor to supply chain disruptions.
Ukraine, in particular, is positioning itself not only as a resilient energy partner, but also as a future key supplier of critical minerals to Europe and beyond. With vast untapped reserves, Ukraine could play a strategic role in supporting the EU’s green transition — if investment, infrastructure, and governance align with sustainable and equitable principles.
The Ukraine Recovery Conference, taking place July 10-11 in Rome, Italy, will address many pressing issues around international support for Ukraine’s recovery and modernization, especially through private sector partnerships. There, I will underscore the need to not just rebuild, but to build differently — toward a more decentralized and sustainable energy system.
A recent report by the International Energy Agency showed a high concentration of production and processing among leading suppliers in the critical minerals sector. For example, in processing, China dominates in 19 out of 20 critical minerals, holding an average market share of around 70%. Moreover, from 2023 to 2025, the world witnessed the dangers of such concentration through numerous export restrictions on critical minerals coming out of China and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is a clear signal of how vulnerable the process of further decarbonization can be to security threats and price shocks.
Consumer countries have already begun actively searching for alternative sources of critical mineral production and processing by signing memorandums and agreements with resource-rich countries. The EU has signed MoUs with Kazakhstan, Namibia, Argentina, Chile, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Uzbekistan, and others. The U.S. signed a so-called critical minerals deal with Ukraine, which established the U.S.-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund. Initiatives such as the Minerals Security Partnership have also emerged.
However, it is important that this process does not turn into pressure or coercion of resource-rich countries to agree to terms that may be disadvantageous to their economic development or security. If natural resources belong to the people of a country, those people have the right to benefit from their use.
To ensure a fair approach to agreements on the extraction and processing of critical minerals, five principles are crucial to keep in mind.
Just as there are standard agreements for contracts in the hydrocarbon sector, it is important to help resource-rich countries develop standard agreements for the extraction and processing of critical minerals.
These agreements should include a mechanism for fair revenue distribution between the investor and the country, as well as high environmental and social standards. International coalitions and organizations often speak of the importance of “good deals” — such as production-sharing agreements and contracts, which have helped to regulate the oil and gas sector. So which international organization can showcase a standard “good deal” in the critical minerals sector?
Instead of exporting raw materials, we must support resource-rich countries in building local value chains. Most often, such countries are developing nations, where creating new jobs and enabling rapid economic development is critical.
This also means helping to transfer new technologies to such countries, making their critical mineral extraction and production processes more modern and efficient. For example, if Ukraine is rich in graphite, why not open a manufacturing facility for energy storage or solar panel production using local graphite resources?
There should be universally accepted international rules that establish “red lines” or “minimum standards” in global critical minerals policy. With such a high level of concentration, it is impossible to continue decarbonization without the risk of another trade war, blackmail, or conflict.
Simple guidance from international organizations is not enough; more often than not, they are ignored by companies or countries that do not fear sanctions. Making international rules binding should be one of the key topics for the recently established U.N. Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals as it works to develop a set of global common and voluntary principles that establish transparency, equity, and sustainability across the sector.
International mechanisms are essential for overseeing critical minerals projects. Tools such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative already collect on-the-ground data. But their findings should be considered by other international structures so that violations — actual or potential — do not remain the sole problem of local communities or national governments. In such cases, signals of violations should be acted upon at the international level.
Most developed countries planning for the future have already created and implemented critical minerals strategies — including the U.S., EU, Canada, Australia, and Norway — clarifying which critical minerals are needed for economic development and security, and where to source them.
In contrast, many developing, resource-rich countries do not have such strategies. Their attention is often focused on finding investors and selling raw materials. Meanwhile, their own needs — such as building new production chains — remain out of sight. This too requires greater international support — from technical assistance in developing a proper fiscal and legislative regime to logistical support in connecting relevant minerals with the industries that will be the backbone of their country’s economic development.
As the world works toward net-zero by 2050, resource-rich countries need not only attention, but also support and oversight from the international community if we’re to achieve a just and sustainable energy transition.
To learn more about the Open Society Foundations’ work in promoting democratic practice, human rights, equity, and justice around the world, visit opensocietyfoundations.org.