Resource Nationalism
A field guide to four mechanisms of resource nationalism — and the blind spot that appears when state control over rent is mistaken for community consent.
Clear starting points for difficult questions about Indigenous rights, extractive industries, transition governance and public accountability.
A field guide to four mechanisms of resource nationalism — and the blind spot that appears when state control over rent is mistaken for community consent.
Mine closure is the planned process of shutting a mine, restoring affected land and securing money for monitoring and remediation after extraction ends.
FPIC is not a consultation meeting or a social licence slogan. It is the right of Indigenous Peoples to grant, withhold, condition or withdraw consent before decisions affecting their lands, territories and resources are made.
Critical minerals are not only a supply-chain issue. They are becoming a rights, finance and accountability problem wherever extraction overlaps with Indigenous lands and climate-transition policy.
An opportunity district is designed to give an underrepresented community a real chance to elect a representative of its choice — under public criteria, legal constraints and institutional scrutiny.
Cracking splits a community across districts so it wins nowhere. Packing concentrates it into one district so its votes are wasted there. Both can preserve formal voting rights while weakening collective representation.
Public money can enter a project through development banks, export credit agencies, guarantees and insurers. Each route creates a different trail of safeguards, disclosure duties and possible complaints.
A secure supply chain is not only a question of geology, processing and geopolitics. Projects that ignore consent and relationships can create the very delays and conflicts that security strategies are meant to prevent.
Climate cases are moving beyond emissions targets. Courts are increasingly asked to examine transition minerals, carbon markets, government duties and whether climate action respects Indigenous rights.
Courts may recognise cultural harm while still valuing the economic loss of extraction narrowly. The gap between recognition and remedy shows why compensation cannot be the only accountability mechanism.
Indigenous representative bodies matter only when institutions can verify their mandate, carry decisions into governance and make participation consequential rather than decorative.