Critical minerals: can Mexico compete without new concessions?

Mexico outlined an international strategy on critical minerals amid a geopolitical landscape marked by supply concentration in China and the industrial repositioning of advanced economies, while keeping the granting of new mining concessions suspended, which raises questions about its ability to compete in this global race.

The government of President Claudia Sheinbaum set as its central axis the defense of sovereignty over resources and active participation in multilateral forums to ensure supply. “Mexico’s mineral reserves belong to Mexico and, in any case, their exploitation is Mexico’s responsibility,” stated the president, stressing that this principle “is not on the table in any negotiation.”

Under this framework, the secretary of economy, Marcelo Ebrard, explained that the strategy does not involve offering national reserves, but rather “guaranteeing the supply of critical minerals for Mexico.” He confirmed the country’s participation in multilateral dialogues promoted by the United States, as well as with Canada, India, South Korea, Japan and the European Union, and in addition Mexico’s pro tempore presidency of the Pacific Alliance in 2026 will incorporate a specific review of critical minerals and rare earths.

The official message combines internal sovereignty and external pragmatism. “One, not to participate, to be spectators, which would be a serious mistake. The other is to sit at the table… and defend the Mexican position,” Ebrard said.

Structural dependence

The strategy starts from a complex reality. The Servicio Geológico Mexicano (SGM) identified an almost total dependence on imports for minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, germanium and palladium, among others. “This total dependence means that this mineral could become ‘critical’ at some point,” its director Flor de María Harp recently explained.

At the same time, Mexico is strong in silver –of which it is the world’s leading producer–, copper, fluorite, manganese, and zinc. However, it does not have an official list of critical minerals or a comprehensive policy aligned with strategic sectors such as automotive, electric, or aerospace.

In November, the former president of Camimex and sector expert, Fernando Alanís, warned that 22 countries had already defined lists and strategies, while Mexico still lacks a clear roadmap. He recalled that the energy transition could double or quadruple the demand for 21 essential metals in 25 years, in a context where developing a mine takes an average of 18 and a half years.

The contrast with China is illustrative. The Asian country prioritized mining as an industrial base decades ago and today controls 19 of the 21 critical metals, in addition to dominating a large part of the value chain, from refining to final products.

The concessions dilemma

The strategic discussion intersects with domestic politics. Since the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Mexico has not granted new mining concessions, a stance that the current administration maintains. Although the management of permits for existing projects has improved, exploration – the basis of future reserves – shows a sharp contraction, with a 24.7% annual drop in mining-related services in 2025.

For the president of the College of Mining-Metallurgical Engineers, Raúl García Reimbert, the dilemma is inescapable. “This is an issue that must be developed in the short term and define the participation of private capital, increase the SGM budget, and resume the granting of concessions; the demand for critical minerals and metals may increase in the medium term or accelerate criticality. A dilemma that needs to be resolved with all stakeholders and trade partners,” he told BNamericas.

A narrow window

Mexico is not starting from scratch: it has reserves, mining experience, and proximity to the largest industrial market in the world. But it is also not leading the agenda, nor has it yet structured a comprehensive framework that brings together sovereignty, investment, incentives, and industrial policy.

The decision to participate in multilateral schemes prevents isolation at a time of global fragmentation. However, the feasibility of combining an active international strategy with the refusal to grant new concessions will depend on whether the country redefines its domestic policy.

In the race for critical minerals, time is decisive. Mines take decades to be developed, while demand is accelerating. Mexico is already at the negotiating table; the unknown is whether its regulatory framework will allow it to compete or whether it will arrive late to a market where speed defines strategic positions.