Territorial Governance, Shared Value and Mining-Energy Integration

Today we see intense global competition for access to copper, lithium and other critical minerals for the energy transition. In this context, what institutional capabilities and public-policy agreements does Latin America and the Caribbean need to consolidate in order to strengthen its position in global value chains and participate actively in the decisions that will shape the future of these markets?

Latin America has widely recognized mining potential, which is now translating into concrete lithium, copper and nickel projects. This is reinforced by a growing advantage: the conditions for producing these minerals are increasingly favorable because of the region’s relatively clean energy mix and its broad renewable-energy potential.

However, the challenge should not be limited to how much mineral the region can produce and export. The central question is what position Latin America wants to occupy in the new economy and how it can capture greater value from its resources.

To move in that direction, Huapaya identifies four priority capabilities: clear and legitimate mining, energy and industrial policies; faster execution of critical-mineral projects and associated infrastructure; broader access to knowledge so that citizens and non-technical actors can understand and benefit from the opportunities; and stronger regional coordination to move from agreements expressed in forums to concrete joint projects.

From a governance perspective, Picón argues that the region also has an opportunity to revisit traditional ways of managing natural resources. Accumulated problems of conflict, distrust and transactional relationships make it necessary to build new models centered on the development of territories and the people who live in them.

International experience also shows that building agreements does not depend exclusively on governments. Coordination among companies, civil society and communities can create new checks, balances and points of convergence for defining more sustainable development models.

Experience in the field shows that dialogue tables among companies, governments and communities often fail to translate into concrete development improvements. Drawing on ALE and GAH’s work in the region, what conditions are needed to move from dialogue to effective joint-implementation mechanisms that generate sustainable benefits for territories?

Dialogue has lost legitimacy in some territories because historically it has been used to delay conflicts, de-escalate violent situations or postpone decisions. The proposal, therefore, is to change its function.

This means moving away from a purely transactional logic and building concrete objectives that can organize collective action. Instead of abstract agreements around comprehensive development plans, the proposal is to define verifiable priorities, establish targets and instruments for implementation, and respect the decisions and priorities of the territory.

Picón adds that these processes must be designed for durability. Governance cannot depend exclusively on one authority, public official or business leader; leadership must be distributed among government, companies and civil society.

He identifies three necessary transformations: move toward co-design and co-ownership from the outset by incorporating traditional authorities and local actors into decisions and implementation; move beyond assistance-based models, avoiding situations in which companies replace the State and instead strengthening local governance; and adopt adaptive management capable of guiding shared decisions in complex and uncertain contexts.

The development of new mining projects requires energy and connectivity infrastructure that, in many cases, must be deployed in territories far from major urban centers. How can coordinated planning between the mining and energy sectors help not only to guarantee the supply required by projects, but also to expand access to infrastructure and services for communities and productive activities in these territories?

One of the main challenges identified is the disconnect between national energy planning and subnational territorial-development instruments. When projects reach the territory, they may encounter development plans, watershed dynamics and productive activities that were not considered during project design.

To close this gap, energy planning needs to be aligned with local strategies and existing value chains, the capabilities of municipal and company technical teams need to be strengthened, and multistakeholder spaces must be institutionalized to move from diagnosis to implementation and monitoring.

Regional experience shows that lack of coordination can also create competition among projects and activities that depend on the same resources. The new context instead requires the integration of mining, energy and territory.

Infrastructure should no longer be conceived exclusively as an enabler of mining operations; it should become an opportunity for territorial development.

In this sense, coordination among mining, electricity and territory is essential to prevent investments from developing in isolation and to transform project-related infrastructure into an enabler of local capabilities, services and productive activity.

Latin America must decide not only how much mineral to produce, but what position it wants to occupy in the new economy, how to govern transformation processes, and how to ensure that mining and energy investment translates into development for territories.