At the G20 in South Africa last year, China announced the International Economic and Trade Cooperation Initiative on Green Mining and Minerals. Key countries signing up included Zimbabwe, Cambodia, Nigeria, and Myanmar. This initiative, like the US led Minerals Security Partnership and other government-to-government agreements, is another example of countries seeking to secure critical minerals supply chains in the race for clean energy.

In March 2026, the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemicals Importers and Exporters (CCCMC) hosted the international Green Mining and Minerals Cooperation Seminar in Beijing. The centre piece of this event was the Green Minerals Initiative (GMI). The GMI is a follow-up to the G20 announcement and is framed as a platform for international cooperation, bringing together governments, industry and civil society to support greener and more transparent mining practices. The GMI reflects a growing intention by China to be seen to be advancing responsible mining through stronger standards and more effective governance systems capable of delivering equitable and accountable outcomes. It also attempts to further increase China’s supply of critical minerals.

Importantly, the GMI, alongside moves to refine China’s project level mining standards, signals China’s increasing engagement in shaping global environmental, social and governance (ESG) agendas. At a time of increasing geo-political competition for minerals needed for the energy transition, the oil crisis, and a realisation of the need to build domestic supply chain resilience, the ramifications of this initiative are significant.

The GMI is at an early stage of development and critical questions remain regarding its governance structure, financing and mechanisms for accountability. For GMI to deliver meaningful impact, it will need clearly defined standards, measurable indicators, and inclusive participation of host countries and civil society. It also needs to be aligned with international governance standards, including the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), the Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA) Standard for Responsible Mining, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

Chinese industry perspectives shared at the Green Mining and Minerals Cooperation seminar highlighted a gradual shift among Chinese mining companies toward embedding ESG standards within corporate systems, especially in areas such as community engagement and risk management. At the same time, participants acknowledged that translating these commitments into consistent, site-level practices remains uneven. This reflects broader structural constraints, including regulatory fragmentation and limited infrastructure in many extraction project host countries.

Transparency International Australia found that 91% of global rare earth reserves are located in jurisdictions perceived as highly corrupt (scoring below the global average (43/100) on the 2024 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), and more than half of the global reserves for the key minerals required for the energy transition, including 74% of cobalt and 67% of nickel, are found in countries with weak governance frameworks. This highlights the risk that the transition mineral boom may not translate to optimal benefits for current and future generations. Transparency International’s Accountable Mining Programme contributed to the discussions in Beijing by emphasising the importance of bridging the gap between voluntary ESG frameworks and mandatory operational practice.

Another focus of discussions in Beijing was the CCCMC Mineral Supply Chain Grievance Mechanism. The mechanism represents an important step toward strengthening accountability within the Chinese mining sector. Its overall effectiveness will, however, depend on how accessible and independent it is in practice, as well as its capacity to safeguard and redress the rights and safety of affected communities.

With over two-thirds of critical minerals projects located on Indigenous lands, or in areas of high water stress, the GMI’s governance must be more than a corporate alliance. The GMI requires a transition from high-level policy dialogue to a framework with enforceable accountability mechanisms. Ensuring that the mechanism is responsive to local concerns and attentive to existing power imbalances will be key to its success.

Overall, the conference demonstrated both the opportunities and risks the increased geo-political competition is having on mining governance. While there is increasing alignment around the importance of responsible practices, translating this into tangible outcomes will require sustained investment in governance capacity, stronger accountability mechanisms, and deeper engagement with civil society.