CRITICAL MINERALSThe Quad Should Share Intel on Critical-Mineral Supply Risks

By Hayley Channer

With China increasing restrictions on critical minerals trade, including tighter export controls on rare earth elements announced in March, the United States and allied countries are trying to bring more mineral supply to market. To succeed, they need to start with more structured information sharing and fusion.

Following China’s mineral export restrictions, the US convened 54 countries in February as part of its FORGE initiative to ignite multilateral cooperation on mineral supply chains. This produced several bilateral memorandums of understanding, but establishing the intent to cooperate is relatively easy. As Australia found with its collection of more than 30 mineral-related agreements, fully activating them is harder.

Even among a smaller group of 10 likeminded countries convened by ASPI in northern Australia in April, coordinating minerals policies currently seems out of reach.

ASPI’s 2026 Darwin Dialogue underscored the widespread disparities in national critical-mineral lists, priorities, capacities, and ambitions for government intervention in markets. Despite the goodwill in the room, a pathway to collective action remained unclear, with the discussion dominated by debating tactics rather than outlining strategy.

A major impediment to developing and implementing a collective strategy is the opacity of critical-minerals supply chains. Governments are unclear about where and how to intervene most effectively at the lowest cost. This is because, just like potential financial investors, governments lack a clear picture of risk and reward at various stages of mineral supply chains.

Critical minerals such as rare earths and gallium are typically traded through a mix of private bilateral contracts, long-term offtake agreements and thin spot markets, rather than transparent, exchange-based systems. This means trade data reporting and price discovery are limited compared to major exchange-traded commodities such as ore. Various processing stages, movement through multiple jurisdictions, mineral blending and commercial sensitivity to sharing data all add to the complexity.

Improving mineral traceability through greater information sharing is the only way for countries to derisk supply chains. Traceability systems would help countries determine mineral origin, create true pricing benchmarks and protect standards. With increased supply chain transparency, strategic groupings with a mineral focus such as the FORGE, G7+ and the Quad could coordinate and act more effectively.

This starts with sufficient data. Likeminded countries need a coordination mechanism to gather, share and analyze information from both public and private sources across multiple markets. Right now, information sharing by governments and industry is ad hoc and unconsolidated. Insights aren’t shared broadly.