In November, Australia, Canada, and India signed a trilateral partnership agreement during the G20 summit held in Johannesburg, the capital of South Africa. At its core, the agreement focuses directly on critical minerals. This agreement represents a proactive geo-economic move by three countries—each with highly complementary resource endowments, industrial needs, and strategic intentions—in the context of a profound restructuring of global supply chains. It signals that the competition over critical minerals has escalated from mere market rivalry to a systemic form of co-competition that integrates resource control, technological alliances, and rule-setting. By building a closed-loop system linking “resources, technology, and markets,” Australia, Canada, and India aim to reshape the power dynamics within critical mineral supply chains. Their actions will profoundly influence the global trajectory of the clean energy transition and high-end manufacturing.

Strategic Impetus Behind the Focus on Critical Minerals by Three Parties

Australia, Canada, and India are joining forces in the critical minerals sector, driven by their respective pressing national strategic needs. These needs converge amid the tensions of a waning globalization and an accelerating climate agenda, giving rise to this alliance of interests.

“For Australia and Canada, the motivation stems from anxieties about their status as ‘resource appendages’ and their pursuit of value along the industrial chain. Both countries are among the world’s leading mineral-resource nations, yet they have long been positioned upstream in the value chain, bearing the risks of price volatility while failing to fully capture the substantial added value generated by downstream refining, manufacturing, and battery technologies. Take lithium, for example: Australia is one of the world’s largest suppliers of lithium ore, but its domestic lithium-processing capacity is negligible, with most of its ore being shipped overseas for processing. Similarly, Canada boasts abundant reserves of nickel, cobalt, graphite, and copper; however, its 2022 “Critical Minerals Strategy” explicitly states that the goal is to ‘become a major global player in critical minerals—from extraction through manufacturing to recycling,’ rather than merely remaining a supplier country. The Strategy pledges up to CAD 3.8 billion in financial support to provide comprehensive assistance across the entire value chain, from exploration to processing and manufacturing.”The two sides share a common goal: to convert resource advantages into industrial and technological strengths, create high-skilled employment domestically, and ensure that their own resources are not used to bolster the manufacturing dominance of strategic competitors.

As for India, its motivation is driven by an unwavering quest for supply security, fueled by its ambitious goals in clean energy and manufacturing. Prime Minister Modi’s “Self-Reliant India” initiative and the target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070 have led to an exponential surge in India’s demand for critical minerals. According to NITI Aayog, a think tank affiliated with the Indian government, by 2030, India’s demand for battery-critical metals such as lithium, cobalt, and nickel will grow by more than 13 times, 15 times, and 8 times, respectively. However, India’s domestic mineral resources are limited and of low grade, leaving it heavily reliant on imports. Joining this alliance aims to establish a politically reliable and economically viable supply chain that supports its strategic plans. This is not merely commercial procurement—it is strategic procurement designed to mitigate the risks of resource nationalism or supply disruptions that may arise in the future.

The shared, deeper motivation behind the trilateral partnership among Australia, Canada, and India lies in their quest to secure “soft” governance over critical mineral supply chains. This encompasses a wide range of factors, including environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, labor rights, carbon-emissions tracking, and digital origin certification. Both Australia and Canada face stringent environmental reviews and challenges related to Indigenous land rights in their domestic mining projects. Each country is striving to translate its own high standards into global norms. By establishing this trilateral partnership, they aim to shape supply chains—from mines to finished products—that meet so-called “high ESG standards.” For instance, Canada is promoting the concept of a “battery passport” to track the carbon footprint of batteries throughout their entire lifecycle. Meanwhile, India hopes that by aligning with such standard-setting frameworks, it can enhance the international acceptance of its domestically manufactured products and attract responsible investments that comply with global norms for its rapidly growing green industries.This cooperation is essentially an attempt to define the 'rules of the game' for future resource trade.

Three Parties in the Field of Critical Minerals

Complementary and Cooperative Potential

The resource endowments, technological capabilities, and market demands of Australia, Canada, and India constitute strategic complementarities, offering the potential to build a supply-chain闭环 that transcends traditional trade relationships and is more resilient and in-depth.

The potential for vertical integration across resources and processing stages is enormous. Both Australia and Canada boast abundant upstream mineral resources. Beyond lithium, Australia also holds significant resource potential in areas such as cobalt and rare earth elements. Canada is a major producer of nickel, cobalt, copper, and graphite. A key area for deepening cooperation lies in the tripartite joint investment in “midstream” smelting and refining capacities. For instance, Australia’s spodumene and Canada’s nickel-cobalt sulfides no longer need to be entirely shipped to traditional processing hubs in East Asia; instead, part of these materials could be specifically directed to India’s rapidly developing processing facilities. Indian companies such as the Adani Group and Vedanta have already announced substantial investment plans in battery materials and copper refining. A trilateral agreement could provide intergovernmental investment facilitation, long-term off-take agreements, and harmonization of technical standards for such projects, thereby reducing commercial risks.A specific example is that the offtake agreement model between Australia’s Liontown Resources and South Korea’s LG Chem could be replicated to supply Indian battery manufacturers, such as the super battery plant currently under construction by Tata Group.

“Collaboration in technology R&D and recycling cycles represents a new growth opportunity. The ‘criticality’ of critical minerals lies not only in their scarcity but also in the complexity of extraction, processing, and recycling technologies. Australia boasts strong capabilities in mineral processing, automated drilling, and emission-reduction technologies. Canada excels in clean technologies, mining automation, and advanced materials R&D, and is home to several top-tier mining engineering universities and federal research centers. India, meanwhile, possesses robust software and data-analytics expertise, as well as a pool of low-cost engineering talent. Australia, Canada, and India could establish a joint R&D fund focused on three key areas: first, innovative processes for efficiently extracting critical minerals from low-grade ores or tailings; second, green technologies that reduce energy consumption and pollution during refining processes; and third, highly efficient recovery of critical metals from end-of-life batteries and electronic products. In the recycling sector, India—a future massive electric-vehicle market—is expected to generate enormous quantities of spent batteries, turning it into a ‘urban mine.’”Tripartite cooperation to develop commercial recycling technologies could enable the establishment of regional recycling centers in India, creating a complete circular economy loop encompassing ‘extraction—manufacturing—use—recycling—remanufacturing.’ Li-Cycle’s recycling technology from Canada is already being applied in North America; such technological cooperation and transfer hold great potential.

Coordinated infrastructure and financial support are essential. Resource development hinges on the completeness of large-scale infrastructure. Australia’s “Critical Minerals Development Program” and Canada’s “Strategic Innovation Fund” both provide grants, loans, and equity investments. India can participate through institutions such as its Export-Import Bank and the National Infrastructure and Investment Fund. The three countries—Australia, Canada, and India—could jointly design comprehensive financing packages for cross-border supply-chain projects. Moreover, there is ample room for cooperation in logistics and certification. For instance, blockchain technology could be leveraged to establish a traceability system from mine to finished product, ensuring that mineral sources meet ESG standards. Australia has already piloted this technology in several mining regions. Through trilateral cooperation among Australia, Canada, and India, it is possible to promote the establishment of regional and even global digital traceability protocols for critical minerals, thereby enhancing supply-chain transparency and market credibility.

Tripartite Cooperation on Critical Minerals

Challenges and Limitations

Despite their ambitious vision and strong complementarity, the cooperation among Australia, Canada, and India in the critical minerals sector may not be entirely smooth, facing multiple challenges from internal interest conflicts, external market competition, and the realities of project implementation.

The contradiction between internal coordination and industrial competition. The primary objectives of Australia, Canada, and India are not entirely aligned. Australia and Canada’s core demand is to enhance the value-added content of their own resources—keeping more refining and intermediate-product manufacturing stages within their borders rather than simply exporting raw ores. Canada’s recently released “Critical Minerals Strategy” explicitly supports building a complete rare-earth permanent-magnet supply chain “from mine to magnet” domestically. However, India seeks to secure stable supplies of raw materials and intermediate products at competitive costs to support its massive manufacturing plans; its “Production Linked Incentive Scheme” aims to attract localization of battery and automotive manufacturing industries. This creates potential tensions: How many processing stages should be located in the resource-rich countries, and how many should be moved to the manufacturing countries? This is a key question. Moreover, there is also direct competition among companies from Australia, Canada, and India.For example, in the lithium chemical products market, the domestic chemical plants currently under construction in Australia and the planned plants in India may compete for market share in the same region in the future. The trilateral framework needs to be carefully designed with a sophisticated mechanism for balancing interests and dividing tasks; otherwise, it could easily become an extension of each country’s domestic industrial subsidy policies rather than genuine cooperation.

Cost competitiveness and the hard constraints imposed by market dynamics. Building a brand-new supply chain that meets high ESG standards will inevitably entail higher initial investment and operational costs. Whether minerals mined in Australia or Canada, after being processed locally or in India and ultimately transformed into batteries or components, can compete with the existing industrial chains in East Asian countries—where economies of scale have already been established and supply chains are highly integrated—presents a fundamental question. For instance, according to data from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence in 2024, China currently accounts for over 80% of global lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity, boasting an unparalleled cluster of industries and cost advantages. Although “friend-shoring” and supply-chain resilience are being given a premium, the final products will still need to stand up to the price scrutiny of the global market. The demand within the Australian, Canadian, and Indian markets—especially the growth rate of India’s electric vehicle market—will determine whether this new supply chain can reach the critical threshold for achieving economies of scale.Before achieving self-sufficiency, Australia, Canada, and India will remain heavily reliant on the global supply chain network for the long term, meaning that cooperation will hardly be completely ‘decoupled’—rather, it will more likely take the form of ‘de-risking’ supplementation and backup.

Environmental and social permitting hurdles for project implementation. Mineral resource development in Australia and Canada faces stringent environmental assessments, protracted approval processes, and strong opposition from Indigenous communities and local residents. For instance, the development of lithium and graphite projects in Quebec, Canada—rich in these resources—must undergo multiple rounds of environmental impact assessments at both the provincial and federal levels and involve extensive consultations with Indigenous communities, a process that can take several years. The situation in Australia is similar. These factors contribute to significant uncertainty and extended timelines for project commissioning. Mining projects within India also frequently spark controversy over land acquisition and environmental concerns. Trilateral agreements cannot bypass each country’s complex legal and socio-political governance systems. Unless these issues are effectively coordinated and it can be ensured that projects proceed in a responsible and efficient manner, the commitment to securing resource supplies will be seriously undermined.Moreover, Australia, Canada, and India also differ in their specific requirements for labor standards and community engagement, necessitating refined coordination.

Overall, the trilateral critical minerals partnership among Australia, Canada, and India is a landmark outcome of the global resource politics entering a new phase characterized by ‘block formation’ and ‘value-based’ approaches. Going beyond simple buyer-seller relationships, this partnership aims to build a strategic alliance that integrates resource security, technological collaboration, standard-setting, and industrial upgrading. Whether this initiative will succeed in the future will largely depend on whether these three countries can coordinate their industrial policies to establish a new type of supply chain that is resilient, green, and competitive at the same time. Regardless of success or failure, this endeavor will accelerate the evolution of the global critical minerals supply chain from a unipolar structure prioritizing efficiency toward a multipolar network structure guided by security and values.

If you have any inquiries or purchasing needs, please feel free to contact SunSirs with support@sunsirs.com.