ABPM NA MÍDIA | No risk, no growth, no development – Luís Maurício Azevedo

While precious metals achieved dizzying historical highs early in the year, in response to global instability and increased demand for safe-haven assets, reinforced by a notable rise in central bank buying activity worldwide, they were also hit by a major and historic pullback. This was attributed to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s shift toward tighter monetary policy expectations, reversing the earlier downward trend in interest rates and supporting a stronger U.S. dollar.

Technical corrections and greater volatility were to be expected, as no asset class keeps moving higher indefinitely. That said, the pullback was short-lived and precious metals soon returned to an upward trend as long-term fundamentals reasserted themselves and the underlying macro picture remained clear: the world is navigating a period of persistent geopolitical tension, capital reallocation, and structural uncertainty.

The perception that all these events affect only our purchasing power, and that changing our investment choices and habits will solve the problem, is both simplistic and dangerous. What is happening can impact the world and the way we live, and it is directly tied to mining and metals.

At the same time, an even more consequential vulnerability remains unresolved: the United States and many industrialized countries continue to depend heavily on China for the processing of metals deemed critical to modern industry and national security.

This fragility is becoming increasingly exposed amid never-ending conflicts and shifts in the global balance of power. For years, we have warned that regulatory and environmental constraints, combined with chronic underinvestment, would restrict the supply of new minerals. That reality is now undeniable, as demand accelerates sharply and deficit scenarios become increasingly difficult to resolve with the current pipeline of projects. This is particularly evident for minerals such as copper, lithium, rare earths, graphite, the platinum group metals (PGMs), cobalt, and nickel — all fundamental inputs for the energy transition (electric and hybrid vehicles, batteries, wind and solar power) as well as the ongoing AI-driven industrial transformation.

The sector requires far greater innovation, sustainability, strategic partnerships and, above all, long-term capital willing to assume the risks inherent to mining.

Structural demand for critical minerals is being amplified by rising defense budgets, the rapid buildout of AI data centers, and the global push toward electrification, while the world has proven unable to expand supply and processing capacity fast enough to keep pace over the coming decades.

In this environment, countries that can offer credible long-life supply potential, combined with stability and scalability, are becoming increasingly central to global strategy, and Brazil is among the few jurisdictions with the geology, scale, energy base and industrial foundation to play that role.

Despite this rising strategic urgency, little has been done globally to materially expand mining and processing capacity, Brazil included. In fact, the Fed’s restrictive stance, by keeping the global cost of capital elevated, may further constrain the investments required to close the supply gap.

This matters because mining and processing infrastructure cannot be built overnight: it requires years, often decades, of development, substantial funding, and a high tolerance for geological, technical, and permitting risk.

THE GLOBAL SHIFT TOWARD TRUSTED, RESILIENT SUPPLY CHAINS IS A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR BRAZIL, WHICH HAS LONG POSITIONED ITSELF AS A RELIABLE PARTNER AND A RELEVANT ECONOMY WITH DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS.

Some recent announcements are, however, heading in the right direction. Initiatives such as the European Union–Mercosur agreement and U.S. funding programs such as Project Vault illustrate a clear wake-up call and directional shift: nations are increasingly focused on sourcing critical materials domestically or from trusted partners, increasing internal processing capacity, and reducing reliance on deeply integrated global supply chains.

For Brazil, this is both a challenge and a test: the country can either remain trapped in inertia and bottlenecks or position itself to attract the long-term capital required to convert its very rich natural endowment into global relevance — and by global relevance, I also mean verticalizing its industry so as not to remain merely a supplier of raw materials.

This shift is strategically important. It creates an opportunity to strengthen ties with industrial economies seeking reliable supply diversification, particularly if Brazil can present itself not only as a mineral-rich jurisdiction, but also as a predictable, rules-based long-term partner.

However, these ambitions will not be achieved through policy declarations alone. Good intentions are not enough. The sector requires far greater innovation, sustainability, strategic partnerships and, above all, long-term capital willing to assume the risks inherent to mining. This is precisely where emerging economies such as Brazil face their toughest challenge.

A country where capital costs are prohibitively high struggles to mobilize domestic investment. In addition, without strong institutions, legal certainty, and regulatory predictability, foreign capital that does arrive tends to be speculative and short-term, while long-term, build-and-stay capital remains hesitant, especially in a global environment of higher interest rates and a stronger dollar.

For Brazil, strengthening institutional credibility is not a secondary issue: it is the defining lever that will determine whether the country can capture the strategic premium now attached to critical mineral supply chains.

Recent developments in nickel and copper further reinforce this strategic reality. Indonesia’s approach to nickel, which accounts for roughly two-thirds of global supply, illustrates how producer nations can increasingly shape supply, pricing dynamics, and downstream or verticalization strategy, supporting the broader view that critical metals are going to command increasing scarcity premiums.

Copper, central to electrification, has similarly moved beyond the characteristics of a typical bull cycle, with supply disruptions and structural tightness driving a repricing that underscores the difference between safe-haven assets and strategic industrial commodities. Copper highlights this divergence most clearly: unlike safe-haven assets, it is being repriced on supply disruption risk and structural deficits. With fragmented inventories and reduced market flexibility, disruptions that were once absorbed more easily now translate into outsized price moves.

Viewed as a whole, the emerging global scenario is best described as a race against time: competition to secure access to critical minerals is accelerating, driving innovation in mining, forcing strategic partnerships and steadily raising the intrinsic value of these materials.

Their importance is no longer purely economic. It is increasingly tied to national security, technological stability, and the ability to execute a green and digital economy. In this context, inertia leads to fragility and dependence, with a high price to be paid by nations that fail to secure reliable sources of supply.

This is precisely where Brazil holds a unique, time-sensitive opportunity. Brazil possesses vast reserves of many of the minerals considered critical for the global energy and technology transition, including copper, nickel, lithium, rare earths, graphite and PGMs, with meaningful diversity and scale. The global shift toward trusted, resilient supply chains is a window of opportunity for Brazil, which has long positioned itself as a reliable partner and a relevant economy with democratic institutions.

Brazil can present itself as a stable and strategic partner for nations seeking to diversify their supply sources and reduce dependence, enabling the secure and sustainable development of essential assets for the global future. But this opportunity is not automatic: it will depend on Brazil’s ability to overcome inertia and strengthen the pillars that long-term capital requires — strong institutions, legal certainty, and regulatory predictability — enabling the country to attract investments, responsibly develop the supply of critical minerals, and secure a more strategic role in the new global economy.

Lastly, Brazil’s challenge is not only external. It also needs to develop stronger domestic funding mechanisms for mineral exploration and development, through both private capital and development agencies, offering competitive and, above all, realistic financing structures and collateral requirements aligned with the risk profile of exploration and development-stage projects.

Without a local financial ecosystem that can support risk capital, growth becomes structurally constrained: no risk, no growth, no development.