engagement

Communities

Bridging the Gap: How IRMA Helped Rebuild Trust Between Mine and Community

Cover of Unki Case StudyEarlier in 2025, IRMA published a case study of the IRMA audit of the Unki mine in Shurugwi, Zimbabwe: Bridging the Gap: How IRMA Helped Rebuild Trust Between Mine and Community, excerpted below.

In the Beginning, Voices Were Lost in Translation

Before the audit, community members rarely had a seat at the table. Now, they bring the chairs.

That’s how it feels in Shurugwi, Zimbabwe, where a shift in how mining is done – and who gets to speak about it – has started to take hold.

The Initiative for Responsible Mining Assurance (IRMA), a global standard for more responsible mining, played a big role in that shift. IRMA is not just about emissions or tick-box safety, but the full picture: labor, land, community, biodiversity, water, human rights. It brings companies, workers, communities and civil society to the same table, and it doesn’t just ask for compliance — it pushes for better.

The audits are independent, the findings are public, and the focus is on shared progress. Change doesn’t come from slogans or public relations campaigns. It comes from patient work: dialogue, discomfort, and the simple act of being heard.

Read the rest of the Unki case study.

READ MORE
UNEP-IRMA Side Session. Photo Credit: Brendan SchwartzUNEP-IRMA Side Session. Photo Credit: Brendan SchwartzBlog

IRMA Engagement at IGF Annual General Meeting

This November IRMA participated in the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development (IGF) 21st Annual General Meeting (AGM) at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. IGF’s 86 Member Countries met with participants from around the world to discuss “Value Beyond Extraction: Rethinking Mining for a Resilient Future.”

The IGF AGM offers an opportunity for IRMA to gather with IRMA Members and AGM participants from around the globe and to contribute to discussions on key topics. This year IRMA’s contribution to the IGF AGM focused on organizing and co-facilitating a Partner-led Side Session with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

The UNEP-IRMA Side Session “Strategies for Strengthening Traceability and Circularity,” provided an overview of emerging strategies and partnerships for traceability and circularity, emphasizing opportunities to advance the General Principles and Actionable Recommendations from the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals. The session outlined UNEP’s work on traceability and circularity, including the implementation of the UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) 6/5 Resolution on environmental aspects of minerals and metals; strategies from the African Union, G7, and G20; examples of approaches of voluntary standards; and a discussion of opportunities to build coherence to amplify positive impacts.

UNEP’s Charlotte Ndakorerwa opened the session with a summary of the UNEA Resolution 6/5, including development of a knowledge hub, and Colombia’s resolution for UNEA-7 on traceability and other aspects of minerals and metals. IRMA’s Law and Policy Director, Kristi Disney Bruckner, provided a brief overview of IRMA and examples of the many new initiatives in development, including the Future Minerals Forum Sustainability Framework, the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) Global Alliance for Responsible and Green Minerals, the G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan and recently launched Roadmap, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards development, emerging national standards, and others. “This is an opportunity moment to build partnerships and coherence to amplify the positive impacts of these initiatives,” she said, “including to advance the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals Guiding Principles and Actionable Recommendations.”

Marit Kitaw of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and Former Interim Director of the African Minerals Development Centre (AMDC) provided an overview of the African Union’s Green Minerals Strategy. The strategy aims to retain value that historically has been lost with exports, focusing on infrastructure, skills, technology, sustainability, value addition, and governance. “We need win-win partnerships,” Marit said, noting that Africa is endowed with over 30% of the world’s critical minerals. “Win-win means for everyone.”

Parliamentarian Cecilia Nicolini, Former National Environment Secretary of Argentina, leading energy transition minerals discussions in Argentina and in MERCOSUR, shared development of a MERCOSUR Regional Strategic Minerals Plan, noting the need for regulatory harmonization and strengthening South-South relationships. “We can be more competitive in a sustainable world,” she said, with “a common voice in the international arena.”

Rodrigo Urquiza Caroca of Chile’s Ministry of Mining discussed Chile’s national strategies for energy transition minerals. Chile has built experience over more than 100 years, learning to balance environmental, social, and economic impacts and implement the International Labour Organization Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (ILO 169). Over 14 meetings with communities over two years informed Chile’s National Lithium Strategy. The country is also learning from its relationships and agreements with bordering countries.

The panel also discussed the work of the G7. Daniel Hill, Deputy Director of Natural Resources Canada, provided an overview of the G7 Critical Minerals Action Plan and  Roadmap noting efforts on traceability, transparency, investment resiliency, innovation, anti-corruption, and performance-based criteria.

The work of civil society organizations is essential to inform and guide development of emerging frameworks. Erica Westenberg, Governance Programs Director at the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), shared experience collaborating with civil society to advance the objectives of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals. Erica noted that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change has been silent on critical minerals and NRGI is working with others to change this to increase equity and justice in the minerals sector. Erica also discussed Colombia’s UNEA-7 resolution on minerals and metals, covering traceability and other topics that aim to advance the work of the UN Secretary-General’s Panel. In her remarks, Erica launched the Expert Group on Preventing Corruption in Transition Minerals report “From Mine to Market: Using Traceability to Fight Mineral Sector Corruption,” noting contributions from IRMA.

Inga Petersen, Executive Director of the Global Battery Alliance, shared GBA’s commitment to a multistakeholder approach to enhance traceability and circularity. “We need collaboration, now more than ever,” she said, noting that even with full recycling of batteries we will have more mining and need to scale social and environmental protections. “We need transparency to understand risks along the value chain,” she said, and “it can only be meaningful if it comes with accountability.” Inga shared an overview of GBA’s recently released Battery Benchmarks, inviting collaboration.

Discussion focused on the need to focus not only on producing countries but also on consumers to ask about responsible sourcing. Participants further discussed traceability, noting that while there is much progress to be made, this has been done in other high-risk and high-reward sectors, and we can learn from these efforts. The discussion also identified opportunities to focus more on value addition, end use of materials, and circularity.

Charlotte concluded the session, noting themes that emerged from the panel and discussion. “There is a need for alignment and interoperability,” she said. “We really need more partnership and collaboration at global and regional levels that are win-win.”

READ MORE
Blog

IRMA Standard v2.0 – November 2025 Revision Update

The second public consultation on the IRMA Standard v2.0 closed a few days ago, and IRMA wants to warmly thank all the organizations and individuals that engaged.

Here are some initial statistics showing the level and diversity of interactions:

  • 82 organizations have engaged in the revision process, covering all regions of the world (see chart below).
  • Comments have been received from all categories of stakeholders and rights-holders, offering a wide and diverse range of perspectives.
  • We note and appreciate the substantial feedback received from multiple organizations that had not contributed during the first round.
  • Several organizations that had contributed during the first round have indicated to IRMA that they had no further comment to share during this second round.

As shown in the pie chart below, IRMA received submissions from all categories of stakeholders and rights-holders:

  • 29% of the contributing organizations are NGOs
  • 23% are companies involved in mining and/or processing and/or exploration
  • 15% are downstream purchasers of mined material
  • 11% are consultancy or audit firms
  • 8% are governments or multilateral organizations
  • 5% are finance institutions or banks or investors
  • 4% are Indigenous organizations
  • Remaining 5% include standard-setters, rating agencies, organized labor, affected communities, and academia

What’s next?

We will now carefully review and process all the contributions, in order to prepare a final version of the Standard which our equally-governed multi-stakeholder Board of Directors will use to inform its discussions and standard approval process.

In the meantime, we are collecting the final answers from the 52 individual Expert Advisors who volunteered to guide us with advice regarding targeted questions on 6 topics.

And a cross-stakeholder Expert Working Group on tailings and mine waste will start soon (its composition is being finalized).

The IRMA Standard v2.0 won’t be approved until the IRMA Board has had time to review such final version, discuss the changes and the recommendations of their constituencies, and has reached consensus.

 

If you have any question regarding this process ,you can contact our Standards Director, Pierre Petit-De Pasquale at: pdepasquale@responsiblemining.net

 

You can find more information about our Standards Development Process here.

 

Picture: Pixabay – Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license

READ MORE
Standard 2.0

Update on Standard for Responsible Mining 2.0

NOTE: This post is superseded by the linked 3 June 2025 update.

As we announced back in October, IRMA is comprehensively revising the 2018 IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining (1.0). This revision process allows IRMA to:

  • Remain accountable to all sectors
  • Remain up-to-date with best practice
  • Add clarity and strengthen auditability
  • Add consistency, and
  • Fill in gaps

Using ISEAL’s Code of Good Practice for Sustainability Systems as a reference, this revision process is informed by:

  • 5 years of ongoing stakeholder engagement
  • Experiences from the initial IRMA third-party audits
  • Review of other standards and initiatives
  • Increased public awareness and evolving expectations of best practice
  • Review of emerging issues garnering international discussions
  • Changes to relevant legislation across the full scope of the standard
  • Comments on previous drafts (IRMA-Ready, Mineral Processing, Chain of Custody)
  • Targeted engagement activities on specific topics
  • IRMA Expert working groups, and
  • Public consultation

Unlike the Standard 1.0 which only covers mineral extraction operations, the  IRMA Standard 2.0 is expected to also cover development, exploration, and mineral processing: the IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining and Mineral Processing. Separately we will launch a Chain of Custody Standard.

Public Comments Received for the 1st Draft of IRMA Standard 2.0

The 90 day public consultation lasted from October 26 through January 26. During that time we:

  • Hosted 2 introductory webinars attended by 150 participants
  • Hosted 20 live topic consultation webinars — across multiple time zones — attended by 180 unique participants
  • Received 2,500+ discrete comments from 82 organizations, and
  • Allowed for additional engagement and feedback outside the formal process

The sector and geographic distributions of these 82 commenting organizations are shown below:

Regions from which Standard 2.0 public comments were submitted

 

Sectors from which IRMA received public comments on Standard 2.0 draft

Of the 28 chapters in first draft Standard 2.0, the most-commented upon were (in alphabetical order):

  • Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Protected Areas
  • Community and Stakeholder Engagement
  • ESIA (Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and Management)
  • Fair Labor and Terms of Work
  • Gender Equality and Gender Protections (new)
  • GHG and Energy Consumption
  • Human Rights Due Diligence
  • Indigenous Peoples and FPIC
  • Occupational Health and Safety
  • Waste and Materials Management
  • Water Management

Public Comments Received for the second draft of the Chain of Custody Standard

A first draft was released for public comment in 2021. The 90 day public consultation for the second draft lasted from October 26 through January 26. During that time we:

Timeline

As included in the graphic below, the IRMA Secretariat is currently processing all the public comments received. Although subject to the approval of the IRMA Board of Directors, it is envisaged to release a 2nd draft for public comment in the second half of 2024. We hope to launch the actual Standard 2.0 – once approved by the IRMA Board of Directors – towards the end of 2024, thus triggering a transition period (duration to be decided and approved by the Board) between versions 1.0 and the 2.0 for all the entities and sites engaged (and seeking to engage) in the IRMA System.

Standard 2.0 revision timeline

READ MORE

IRMA Mining Engagement – March 2024

As of March 2024, 82 mining companies are now engaged in IRMA representing 104 sites:

61 sites are self-assessing under the IRMA Standard (39 have made this public), the first step before an independent audit;

24 are piloting the draft IRMA exploration (IRMA Ready) or mineral processing standard self-assessments

19 are in the independent assessment system: 13 audits are underway (USA, South Africa, Senegal, Mozambique, Brazil, Chile, Argentina) and 6 completed audits have been published (Zimbabwe, Mexico, Chile)

They encompass 30 countries.

Details and maps of the mining sector’s engagement with IRMA are available here.

 

READ MORE
Credit: Dick Thomas Johnson-CCBY2.0Credit: Dick Thomas Johnson-CCBY2.0Government

ISO, responsible mining, and multi-stakeholder engagement

As the ISO takes on important work on responsible mining, IRMA restates the importance of inclusive and meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement

On 15-16 February 2024 in Tokyo, Japan, IRMA participated in the first working session of the ISO IWA 45, an international working agreement on “sustainable critical mineral supply chains.” This project is led by Standards Australia (Australia’s national standardization body) under the auspices of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and is tasked to “understand the range of sustainability tools/guides/frameworks available which will assist in improving an organization’s sustainability outcomes.” ISO is a quasi-governmental organization dedicated to standard development, headquartered in Switzerland and composed of the national standards bodies of its member countries.

This workshop was an in-person-only event which, while providing constructive opportunity for people to connect directly, dramatically reduced the number and diversity of stakeholders affected by mining and mineral value chains to participate. There were about 45 participants, with a majority from industry (mining and mineral processing) and consultants to the private sector, followed by government delegations (including national standardization bodies and state agencies or research institutions). The most represented countries were the United States, Canada, China, and Japan.

Articulating the perspectives of our members from six houses—affected communities, downstream purchasers, investment and finance, mining industry, NGOs, and organized labor—IRMA worked actively in the session to integrate the perspectives of civil society and organized labor, as those groups were not in attendance. We are concerned about how their absence might leave a significant gap in this process and encourage the event organizers to increase this outreach.

The working session opened with a summary of the results obtained from a preliminary survey circulated by Standards Australia in January 2024. Of the 115 full responses received, two-thirds came from the mining and mineral processing industry, 7% from NGOs, and 7% from academia. Most of the responses originated from China and Canada (over 10%), followed by the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, Germany, South Africa, and Sweden; other countries were all under 3%.

Given the survey feedback was foremost from industry, the main insights shared by the workshop organizer reflected the positions of industry representatives who engaged in the survey, including the “proliferation,” “overlap,” and “inefficiency” of sustainability standards, the “confusion” they would create, and the “burden” created by assurance mechanisms that would be “significant, costly, and time-consuming”.

It is worth noting that IRMA has never heard civil society or mine workers complain that “assurance processes are too expensive,” but rather that they see need for increased investment in transparent sharing of information on performance and for improved practices. We hope that Standards Australia will be able to soon provide a breakdown of the responses by stakeholder groups and increase outreach to civil society, Indigenous rights holders, and labor leaders.

IRMA emphasized throughout the workshop the importance of inclusive and meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement for ISO to ensure robustness and credibility in its processes and its efforts to standardize responsible business practice. A number of other participants similarly asked for more proactive and targeted outreach to all stakeholder groups. The issue of inclusive and meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement was then selected by the organizer as the final topic for plenary discussion.

As currently designed, IWA and ISO processes, including IWA 45, are not inclusive for affected communities, NGOs, and organized labor, and do not allow for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement. We ask that this fundamental gap be identified as the top priority in the final report that will be produced by Standards Australia this year, including as a key recommendation to inform the other ongoing ISO committees and workstreams on responsible mining and sustainable mineral value chains.

 

Photo credit: Dick Thomas Johnson CCBY2.0

READ MORE

IRMA Mining Engagement Update – Dec 2023

As of Dec 2023, 80 mining companies are now engaged in IRMA representing 101 sites:

59 sites are self-assessing under the IRMA Standard (38 have made this public), the first step before an independent audit;

24 are piloting the draft IRMA exploration (IRMA Ready) or mineral processing standard self-assessments

18 are in the independent assessment system: 14 audits are underway (USA, South Africa, Senegal, Mozambique, Brazil, Chile, Argentina) and 4 completed audits have been published (Zimbabwe, Mexico, Chile)

They encompass 30 countries.

Details and maps of the mining sector’s engagement with IRMA are available here.

 

READ MORE
Listening to CommunitiesListening to CommunitiesAudits

Audit Community Engagement Learnings

For companies that depend on mined materials to make their products, any assessment of supply chain impacts must include a focus on the point where minerals are extracted from the earth.

There are various tools companies can use to better understand impacts at the point of extraction, including assessment of a specific mine’s performance against an established standard for responsible mining. The value of such an assessment depends on the quality of the standard and on the rigor and independence of the actual audit process. Among the diverse ways auditors assess a mine’s environmental and social impacts, one of the most crucial is direct engagement of communities and Indigenous rights holders.

Community members should have the opportunity to ask questions, to express concerns or outright opposition, and to learn firsthand how a mining company intends to address their needs and share the long-term benefits. People everywhere want a say in decisions that will shape their lives and they rightly expect their voices to be heard.

Over the past several years, as we’ve overseen an increasing number of independent audits, we’ve been exploring various approaches to better include communities living near mines in the process. We’re doing a great deal of testing and learning along the way, making small refinements and a few major course corrections, guided by insights from the six diverse constituencies who govern our initiative.

Supporting us in this effort is Mercedes-Benz Group AG, an IRMA member since 2020.

In 2022, Mercedes-Benz provided funding for IRMA to enhance and further explore how best to engage with mining communities. By implementing new practices and experimenting with alternative approaches to the auditing process, we’ve found ways to improve the community engagement already built into IRMA’s audit process.

The result of our collaboration is this report. It will guide our own practices as we continue to improve and, we hope, illustrate to all purchasers of mined materials — as well as mining companies, investors, regulators, other standards systems, NGOs and, of course, affected communities — how assessments in the industry might be strengthened, ultimately accelerating our common aim: to protect human rights and make mining more responsible.

READ MORE
Sewell, Chile Attribution: Hiroki OgawaSewell, Chile Attribution: Hiroki OgawaAudits

IRMA response to civil society groups’ greenwashing concerns

1 Oct note: this blog has been edited since it was originally published to add IRMA’s position on “certification” and to increase clarity

An acknowledgment

IRMA acknowledges the continuing frustrations and important concerns raised in a statement by a network of civil society groups in relation to voluntary initiatives and certification systems, and specifically critique of the IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining and its associated independent audit system. We hear loud and clear their concerns that the Standard’s verification and achievement levels, and even participating in the audit process, could enable what some affected communities see as “greenwashing” the impacts of large-scale extraction. While we respond here to the concerns raised, we will respect request of groups in this network to not be named in our response.

IRMA’s Standards seek to reflect the perspectives of all stakeholders and Indigenous rightsholders using an equal, multi-stakeholder governance model. We actively seek out and encourage diverse perspectives from civil society actors as evident through the composition of working groups that aim to ensure that IRMA equally represents all concerned with the impacts of mining and the need to reduce harm. Some in civil society will find use in IRMA’s tools to make mining projects better, reducing negative impacts and increasing benefit sharing, others may reference IRMA’s definition of best practices when resisting mining in a place where Indigenous rights holders and others affected believe the risks and losses are too great. IRMA’s Standards reflect the principles of international conventions such as ILO 169 and the United Nations Decrlation on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and also the International Finance Corporation’s expectations that companies demonstrate they have achieved “broad community support” where they do business.

Not a replacement for government oversight

IRMA is a voluntary initiative intended to be used as a tool to offer transparency and accessibility to independently verified information of a mine site’s performance. It is not intended to replace or interfere with government oversight. We agree that no voluntary initiative has enforcement power to hold mining companies financially or legally accountable for infractions. IRMA’s independent audits are meant to provide unprecedented transparency and information about individual mining operations that affected stakeholders and rightsholders can use to demand better mining practices. This also offers opportunity for diverse sectors to differentiate and create greater value for mining companies who reduce harm, increasingly adopt best practices and more equitably share benefits with host communities.

IRMA doesn’t certify

It is important to note that IRMA is not a “certification” system. Although many voluntary standard systems do assign a stamp of approval, IRMA does not. We create and maintain a best-practice mining Standard, and through independent auditing, we report how a mining operation performs against that Standard. An IRMA 50 or 75 isn’t a stamp of approval. Rather, it’s insight into how an independent audit firm decided that the mine scored no lower than either 50% or 75% in the 4 IRMA principles: environmental and social responsibility, business integrity, and leaving positive legacies. Information is power, and power to positively change how mining is done. IRMA is dedicated to ensuring all those affected by mining have the information they need to make informed decisions about the mining that affects them.

Funding

Many voluntary standard systems related to mining are governed and primarily funded by private entities or industry trade associations. Civil society organizations have expressed concern that the motives of mining trade associations may appear in conflict with those whose highest priority is avoiding or minimizing mining’s negative impacts. We seek opportunities to collaborate with mining trade associations as they offer powerful potential to support their members to improve practices – and IRMA will maintain its fundamental commitment to equal governance by affected communities, labor unions, and NGOs working alongside private sector leaders. IRMA’s funding structure does include income from private sector membership fees and special project grants. However, over 50% of our funding is from philanthropic organizations that are passionate about climate justice and an equitable energy transition, including but not limited to the Ford Foundation, Climateworks Foundation, 11th Hour Project and Waverley Street Foundation.

Audits and audit firms

The network’s statement criticizes voluntary initiatives for not requiring surprise/unscheduled audits, expressing concern that mine sites can prepare in advance to clean-up or hide negative aspects of their operations. Auditor firms trained and approved by IRMA conduct an extensive review of documentation (including but not limited to records of site photos and digital files) to make informed decisions regarding compliance with standard requirements. IRMA is the only mining standard that requires public notice of audits before they begin – so that any Indigenous rights holder or other stakeholder may have direct access to auditors, to share their perspectives and concerns. Auditors reach out to stakeholders though various means to hear diverse perspectives, including online comment forms and social media (including WhatsApp), radio announcements, flyers and word of mouth individual outreach. IRMA staff also work to spread the word, including in-person conversations with workers, local community members, and NGO allied organizations.

IRMA acknowledges and shares the concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of auditors and the auditing companies that employ them. As mentioned in the network’s statement, the reality is that most auditors for the mining sector, to date, have historically been accustomed to assessing mine sites against industry-led initiatives and standards. Affiliates of auditing companies have at times also served mining company clients either directly or indirectly through other means such as technical consulting services. IRMA requires its approved audit firms to follow conflict of interest rules, meet technical and expertise criteria, and draft audit reports are reviewed by IRMA’s Director of Assurance prior to finalization. The first 15 initial audits against the IRMA Standard for Responsible Mining have served and are serving both the IRMA Secretariat and Board, and the audit firms with whom we work, an opportunity to listen, learn and identify ways to improve the process for training of auditors, clarifying requirements in the Standard and improving civil society engagement in the audit process.

Improvement is for IRMA too, not just mining operations

The IRMA Secretariat and Board of Directors appreciate the recommendations from organizations that are critical of voluntary initiatives, and we commit to a practice of continually improving the IRMA system to build the trust, value and confidence for everyone who uses the system. IRMA is currently in the process of acting on civil society recommendations to improve methods for communicating audit report results and accessibility to IRMA’s Issues Resolution System.

IRMA’s approach to supporting more responsible mining encompasses the need to have mining operations be measured against best practices as assessed through the 400+ requirements of the standard. By supporting civil society participation in audits, we work to amplify the right of Indigenous rights holders and other stakeholders who say “No” to a mining operation, and to those who seek reduction of harm, increased access to information, improved benefits sharing and elevating their perspectives at an international level. IRMA firmly believes that through constructive dialogue with all IRMA can be a tool that encourages change that is equitable and inclusive of all perspectives in relation to mining.

READ MORE

IRMA Mining Engagement Update – Sep 2023

As of Sep 2023, 76 mining companies are now engaged in IRMA representing 99 sites:

59 sites are self-assessing under the IRMA Standard (36 have made this public), the first step before an independent audit;

23 are piloting the draft IRMA exploration (IRMA Ready) or mineral processing standard self-assessments

15 are in the independent assessment system: 11 audits are underway (South Africa, Senegal, Mozambique, Brazil, Chile, Argentina) and 4 completed audits have been published (Zimbabwe, Mexico, Chile)

They encompass 29 countries:

  1. Argentina
  2. Australia
  3. Brazil
  4. Canada
  5. Chile
  6. Colombia
  7. Dominican Rep.
  8. Finland
  9. France
  10. Indonesia
  11. Liberia
  12. Mexico
  13. Mozambique
  14. Namibia
  15. New Caledonia
  16. Norway
  17. Panama
  18. Portugal
  19. Philippines
  20. Russia
  21. Senegal
  22. South Africa
  23. Spain
  24. Sri Lanka
  25. Turkey
  26. Ukraine
  27. United States
  28. Zambia
  29. Zimbabwe

And 52 minerals and mineral types:

  1. Aggregates
  2. Barite
  3. Bauxite
  4. Cerium
  5. Chromite
  6. Chromium
  7. Coal (metallurgical)
  8. Cobalt
  9. Copper
  10. Diamonds
  11. Europium
  12. Feldspar
  13. Gadolinium
  14. Gold
  15. Graphite
  16. Iridium
  17. Iron
  18. Kyanite
  19. Lanthanum
  20. Lead
  21. Limestone
  22. Lithium
  23. Magnesium
  24. Mica
  25. Mineral sands
  26. Molybdenum
  27. Monazite sand
  28. Neodymium
  29. Nickel
  30. Osmium
  31. Palladium
  32. Praseodymium
  33. Platinum
  34. Potash
  35. Quartz
  36. Rare earth elements
  37. Rhodium
  38. Ruthenium
  39. Samarium
  40. Sand
  41. Selenium
  42. Silver
  43. Staurolite
  44. Sulphur
  45. Talc
  46. Tellurium
  47. Titanium
  48. Tourmaline
  49. Vanadium
  50. Xenotime
  51. Zinc
  52. Zircon
READ MORE
  • 1
  • 2