From research to policy: How South-South learning is helping producer countries turn mineral policy into practice

Governments seeking to strengthen how they manage transition minerals often look abroad for examples. Yet some of the most useful lessons come not from countries with vastly different political and institutional contexts, but from peers grappling with many of the same opportunities, constraints and policy dilemmas. That idea lies at the heart of the South-South Transition Minerals Learning Platform, an initiative convened by the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) with support from The Rockefeller Foundation. This program brings together government officials from Chile, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Indonesia and Zambia with research partners in each region: the Universidad de Chile, which hosted this convening, the African Centre for Energy Policy, which supports the DRC and Zambia cohorts, and Universitas Gadjah Mada from Indonesia. The Platform creates an opportunity for producer countries to test ideas with one another while tackling one of the defining questions of the energy transition: how can mineral wealth help build more inclusive, resilient and prosperous societies?

The Chile convening was designed to move ideas along a deliberate path, from research on paper toward implementation. Over the week, that path ran through five stations: national research prepared in advance, peer debate that stress-tested it, site visits that grounded it, implementation planning, and a community of practice that turns ideas into action. It focused on two priorities identified by the country cohorts themselves. The first examined how governments can translate ambitions for mineral-based industrialisation into coherent strategies and practical measures. The second explored how stronger environmental, social and governance (ESG) systems can move beyond compliance to deliver better development outcomes.  

Participants arrived with ongoing research and used the week to challenge assumptions, compare approaches and refine their thinking.

1. Starting on paper: national research

The convening built on six months of collaborative research within each country cohort. Chile has been examining how to develop a long-term national vision for transition minerals that remains coherent across political administrations and how the economic benefits can help structure a development agenda. Zambia is exploring how to attract investment into downstream industries rather than extraction alone. Indonesia is considering the next phase of its downstreaming agenda, while the DRC is looking at how institutional coordination and local content policies can better support industrial development.

Although the contexts differed, many of the underlying policy questions proved remarkably similar. Research prepared in advance, however, is only tested once peers begin to interrogate it.

Discussions focused on why different approaches emerge, what trade-offs they involve, and which elements might be adapted elsewhere. That distinction shaped the tone of the week: the objective was not to identify a blueprint, but to improve national decision-making through contrast.

2. Testing assumptions on value addition

One of the week’s most revealing discussions centred on value addition and economic linkages.

Conventional thinking often assumes that countries should move gradually up the value chain, developing one stage before investing in the next. The Indonesian cohort challenged that assumption, explaining why their government deliberately pursued multiple stages simultaneously. Their argument was that developing different parts of the value chain together could stimulate demand, sustain political momentum and provide flexibility as global markets evolve.

The discussion was not about determining which approach was "correct". Instead, it explored the political, institutional and market conditions that make different strategies viable. The broader lesson was that successful value chain policy cannot simply be transplanted from one country to another; it must reflect national circumstances.

Chile's experience prompted a complementary discussion. Participants examined how supplier development, processing costs and market demand shape what is economically viable and what is strategically important, shifting the conversation away from whether countries should pursue value addition towards the more difficult question of which parts of the value chain create value under particular conditions.

Unexpected similarities also emerged. Despite very different histories and policy environments, Chile and Zambia found themselves grappling with many of the same questions around smelting capacity and mineral processing. These moments of convergence reinforced the value of bringing producer countries together—not because their circumstances are identical, but because their policy dilemmas often are.

3. From standards to systems: ESG as a governance challenge

The same emphasis on practical problem-solving shaped discussions on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.

Rather than treating ESG primarily as a question of standards, participants focused on implementation. One discussion explored whether producer countries could compare how the same multinational mining companies apply ESG commitments across different jurisdictions. Another examined Indonesia's SIMBARA traceability system (which brings together data from across the mineral supply chain into a single government platforms) and how stronger coordination across government can improve transparency, revenue management and accountability. These conversations also broadened the debate. Instead of asking only how governments can minimise environmental and social harms, participants considered how mineral governance can actively support stronger local economies, better employment opportunities and more resilient public institutions.

By this point, attention had shifted towards a new set of practical questions: how should governments evaluate these policies over time? How can they coordinate institutions responsible for ESG enforcement? How can producer countries cooperate with one another on traceability and responsible production? The discussions generated fewer definitive answers than better questions, a sign that comparative learning was sharpening, rather than simplifying, policy thinking.  Yet all of this was still a conversation around a table, built on policy papers and presentations. That is where the next step became important. 

4. Where the discussion met the operation: the field visit

One of the week's defining moments took place outside the meeting room. On site, the week's two threads, value addition and ESG, came together in practice rather than on paper.

Participants travelled beyond Santiago to two regions of Chile: Codelco's El Teniente complex in O'Higgins and its Ventanas refinery in Valparaíso, allowing them to observe different stages of the country’s mining value chain firsthand.

The visits sparked practical conversations about issues that rarely emerge in abstract policy debates: how institutions coordinate across different stages of production, how environmental standards are implemented in practice, where supplier development succeeds (or struggles) and how governments balance industrial ambition with operational realities.

By combining technical dialogue with real-world examples, participants developed a richer understanding of both the opportunities and complexities of pursuing greater value addition.

5. Building a community that turns ideas into practice

Perhaps the convening's most significant outcome was not a new policy recommendation but the relationships that continued to develop between the country cohorts.

Over months of working together, officials have become increasingly willing to share unfinished ideas, question one another's assumptions and test ideas before they are implemented at home. Several of the debates that began in Santiago, or at the first convening in Indonesia, are already feeding back into revised country papers and will continue as the Platform moves towards its next phase.

The Santiago convening did not produce a single roadmap for transition minerals governance, nor was that its purpose. Its value lay in something more practical: giving policymakers the opportunity to interrogate their assumptions alongside peers confronting similar challenges.  

That exchange is now widening. At Climate Week NYC in September, the Platform will convene policymakers and researchers from the four country cohorts alongside international counterparts. The cohorts will then reconvene in Zambia later this year with a stronger emphasis on implementation, examining how comparative insights can be translated into policies that respond to national realities.

In an area where no country has yet found a definitive model for success, that kind of comparative problem-solving may prove more valuable than searching for best practice alone.