With the anticipated increase in demand for critical minerals to enable energy and digital transition, governments are increasingly turning to government-to-government (G2G) deals and partnership frameworks to diversify supply chains and secure access to critical raw materials. Since January 2025, the United States, for example, has signed at least 20 bilateral frameworks, memoranda of understanding (MOUs) and resource-backed financing agreements to secure access to critical minerals.
High-profile examples include the US-Ukraine minerals deal, which channels a share of Ukraine’s mineral license revenues into joint initiatives, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)-US resources-for-security arrangement, which establishes a strategic partnership to strengthen supply chain cooperation, support responsible mineral development and mobilise investment alongside security cooperation in exchange for a peace deal.
These agreements reflect a broader trend in new forms of partnerships among states. While some have attracted attention, many others – across IGF member countries and both Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) implementing and non-implementing countries – remain less visible as they are not accessible in the public domain.
If well designed and implemented, such agreements can unlock investment across the mining value chain, help address infrastructure gaps and provide stable access to markets. However, their implications for resource governance, corruption risks, domestic economic diversification and revenue mobilisation, environmental and social protections, and the energy transition are not yet fully understood. Greater transparency over their terms is essential to mitigate risks and ensure these deals serve public interests. The EITI, together with the IGF, can play a complementary role in addressing risks and harnessing opportunities at the national level, combining transparency, policy guidance and capacity support.
Emerging opportunities and risks
Speed over scrutiny
Many G2G agreements have been negotiated rapidly, often with limited space for public consultations or parliamentary oversight.
In contexts where civic space is constrained, this raises concerns about accountability. Some agreements include commitments to expedite permitting processes to accelerate production. While this may help meet growing demand, it can also lead to less government screening which heightens environmental and social risks, including conflict with affected communities, if impact assessments and community consultations are insufficient. These may have ripple effects on investments in the advent of social unrest. Provisions that allow for alignment of domestic laws with agreement terms – particularly on fiscal incentives or investment conditions – may further weaken safeguards if not carefully managed.
EITI implementation can help bring greater transparency to these processes. Through disclosures on licensing and legal frameworks (EITI Requirement 2.1), multi-stakeholder groups (MSGs) can document and scrutinise fast-tracked approvals, helping ensure that deviations from standard procedures are publicly explained and subject to oversight.
Similarly, the IGF, through its legal and regulatory advisory services, can support governments in strengthening permitting frameworks, improving transparency and coordination across agencies, and reducing regulatory duplication, while ensuring that environmental and social safeguards are maintained and enhanced.
Evolving legal and institutional frameworks
As well as lacking transparency, these agreements can introduce new legal, regulatory and fiscal arrangements, as well as new oversight bodies. This creates a risk of fragmented governance and unclear accountability, particularly where mandates overlap or fall outside existing systems.
The EITI provides a mechanism to track these changes. Disclosures on legal frameworks and institutional arrangements (Requirement 2.1), can help MSGs map new entities, clarify their roles and identify potential governance gaps, supporting more coherent oversight.
The IGF provides legal and institutional assessments, benchmarked on international best practices through its Mining Policy Framework. The framework, created in collaboration with governments, helps identify strengths and gaps in mining legislation and institutions, so that they can be improved.
Opacity in follow-on deals
Even when G2G agreements are non-binding, they often pave the way for private sector deals that are not always transparent. This includes off-take agreements, infrastructure contracts and corridor development arrangements.
The complexity of these deals – often spanning extraction, transport and logistics – can obscure financial flows and increase the risk of mispricing, revenue loss and corruption.
EITI requirements on contract transparency and barter or infrastructure agreements (Requirements 2.4 and 4.3) can help address these risks. By disclosing contracts and related financial arrangements, countries can provide greater clarity on the full chain of agreements and associated obligations. For example, disclosure of the Sicomines contract in the DRC enabled the MSG to analyse contract terms and inform renegotiations with Chinese counterparts.
IGF’s work on mining contracts, including direct support to its member countries on contract negotiation and base-erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), further complements these efforts by supporting governments in understanding and negotiating complex deal structures and in rebalancing the uneven bargaining power, including when negotiating under pressure. Furthermore, the IGF can provide legal advice to ensure mining deals meet international standards.
Hidden ownership and security considerations
The real owners and investors of projects related to G2G deals are often hidden from public view.
The trend of entering into security deals in exchange for access to minerals may be treated as matters of national security that could involve exemptions in international trade or investment frameworks, limiting disclosure or oversight.
These could raise concerns over the types of investors engaged in deals financed by defence departments.
EITI disclosures on beneficial ownership (Requirement 2.5) can help shed light on who ultimately owns and controls companies involved in these projects. This is particularly important in high-risk contexts, where opaque ownership structures may increase corruption risks.
Fiscal risks and reduced policy space for economic development
Certain provisions in G2G deals — such as long-term supply commitments, price stabilisation mechanisms or preferential fiscal terms — may constrain governments’ ability to adapt policies, regulate effectively or pursue national development objectives.
While these arrangements may reduce market uncertainty, they can also affect government revenues and limit opportunities for value addition at home, and at the regional level, if large volumes of production are locked into export agreements.
EITI reporting on fiscal terms and revenues (Requirements 4 and 6) can help track the implications of these provisions. By disclosing revenues, incentives and exemptions, MSGs can assess how such agreements affect public finances and inform policy discussions. IGF’s support to legal frameworks, including trade and investment deals, can support countries in negotiating fair terms of agreement to maintain policy space to meet development objectives.
Complex finance arrangements
The implementation of these agreements often involves a range of financial instruments, including loans, guarantees and infrastructure-for-resources arrangements. Some agreements provide for fiscal, tax and regulatory incentives. Where state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are involved, these flows can be particularly complex and difficult to track.
EITI requirements on SOE financial relations, loans and guarantees (Requirement 2.6 and related provisions) provide a framework for improving transparency. Disclosures can help clarify financial risks, contingent liabilities and the terms of financing arrangements, supporting more informed oversight.
Leveraging the EITI and IGF
The EITI offers practical entry points for strengthening transparency and accountability across the lifecycle of G2G agreements. EITI reporting can help identify and disclose agreements, as well as related roadmaps, implementation plans and follow-on contracts. MSGs can also serve as platforms for consultation and oversight, supporting dialogue on how these agreements are designed and implemented, and help ensure that public, industry and civil society perspectives are reflected.
EITI requirements on contract transparency, beneficial ownership and financial disclosures provide tools to shed light on the complex web of arrangements that often follow G2G deals, from extraction to infrastructure and export.
Building on country experience, the EITI can also support efforts to embed transparency principles more systematically in future agreements and their operational frameworks, helping ensure that commitments to openness and accountability are translated into practice.
Complementing this, the IGF, through its Mining Policy Framework and country-level assessments, provides governments with practical tools to strengthen legal, fiscal and institutional frameworks. These tools can help countries better navigate and manage the complexities of emerging G2G agreements, ensuring that they are aligned with national development objectives and supported by robust governance systems.
Together, the EITI and IGF offer a strong foundation for advancing transparency, strengthening governance frameworks and providing direct support to producing countries to navigate G2G agreements, avoid risks, leverage opportunities and support more informed and balanced decision-making in the development of critical mineral resources.