A road map for the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative

Hindustan Times

28-07-2025

At the Quad foreign ministers' meeting in Washington earlier this month, Australia, India, Japan and the US announced a Quad Critical Minerals Initiative (QCMI) — a signal of shared intent, but one still in search of substance.
China has asserted its dominance in critical minerals — first through export controls on gallium and germanium, and more recently by curbing rare earth shipments. The US responded with executive orders to secure supply chains. Allies are moving to re-shore and diversify. The logic is clear: From electric vehicles (EVs) to jet engines and semiconductors, critical minerals will shape both economic competitiveness and strategic autonomy in the 21st century.
Despite growing convergence, Quad members differ on which minerals are 'critical' to them. India lists 30 minerals, such as copper, cadmium and potash for agriculture and energy needs. The US list of 50 minerals emphasises aluminium, barite and graphite for the defence and tech industries. Australia focuses on 31 minerals, including lithium, rare earth elements (REEs) and zirconium. Japan's list of 35 minerals emphasises gallium, dysprosium and yttrium.
Quad has 20 minerals in common — including cobalt, graphite, lithium and REEs — low-hanging fruit for alignment. Yet, 36 minerals are unique to just one member, opening opportunities for swaps and co-investment.
Quad supply chains remain highly vulnerable, especially graphite, copper, REEs and lithium. For example, China dominates REE refining, accounting for more than 90% of global capacity. The US lacks heavy REE separation. India, despite significant reserves, produces just 1% of global output. Even Australia's only major non-Chinese producer, Lynas, depends on China for refining. Japan, targeted by China's 2010 export ban, still sources more than half of its REEs from China.
This is illustrative of the larger vulnerabilities of the Quad supply chain. India is 100% import dependent for its lithium, cobalt and nickel needs. The US lacks refining capacity, while Japan compensates with export-grade refining expertise. Australia holds the upstream edge but relies on external processing.
India faces dual challenges: import dependence and limited domestic processing. However, growing demand from EVs and solar energy creates incentives for integration. The government has introduced sweeping reforms, from a National Critical Mineral Mission (NCMM) to duty exemptions on critical minerals and scrap metal imports. With the right partnerships, India can emerge as a hub for minerals processing and manufacturing.
India's critical minerals sector, especially downstream, is not yet globally competitive. But a nascent market is not a novel challenge. India built its IT services hub through telecoms investments, tax incentives and talent development. Japan spurred semiconductor growth via co-ordination and export credit, while Australia built lithium dominance through exploration incentives and export infrastructure. Even China, the global EV leader, invested ₹12 trillion ($230 billion) to build its ecosystem in battery R&D and manufacturing.
Critical minerals policy is fragmented across nations and industries. Without a co-ordinating forum, exploration, ESG standards and procurements remain unaligned. The QMCI could serve as a government-industry platform to align policies, share analysis, harmonise standards and co-ordinate projects. Pooling expertise and negotiating power can dismantle barriers to diversified supply chains as shown by the US-led Minerals Security Partnership and G7 Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance. The QMCI should go beyond convening towards joint stockpiling, financing and standards harmonisation efforts to improve offtake.
Access to patient capital is a major hurdle for critical minerals projects, which require high investments and long timelines. BloombergNEF estimates ₹179 trillion ($2.1 trillion) will be needed by 2050 to meet global demand for transition metals — about ₹5.9 trillion ($70 billion) annually.
A supply-demand mismatch will threaten net-zero targets and clean energy scalability. To address this, the QMCI should establish a joint Critical Minerals Investment Platform to pool concessional finance, like the US-Qatar-backed TechMet sovereign fund, worth ₹24.3 billion ($285 million), or Australia's ₹222 billion ($2.6 billion) Critical Minerals Facility. These efforts underscore how strategically deploying public capital through joint vehicles can derisk frontier mineral ecosystems.
Technological fragmentation and R&D underinvestment are slowing minerals sector growth. Of the ₹4.2 trillion ($49.7 billion) invested in global public R&D in 2023, only a small fraction went to critical minerals. Mining talent pipelines also lag demand. While the US and Australia face shortages, India's 110 mining engineering colleges produce an exponentially higher number of graduates annually, suggesting strong complementarity. Without co-ordinated R&D and talent investment, the Quad risks missing productivity gains needed for value-added mineral activities.
In the coming decade, countries setting standards, financing infrastructure and training workforces for critical minerals will shape the next industrial era. The Quad can lead this transformation — or be compelled to follow others, at its cost.
Kaira Rakheja is energy analyst, IEEFA South Asia, and Akshat Singh is an independent policy consultant and previously was an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The views expressed are personal