The Future of Materials Systems 2026

Areas for further cooperation Improve coordination on forecasting, transparency and accountability across strategic minerals supply chains.PRIORITY ACTION Building on and complementing the G7 and G20 initiatives on critical minerals and the IEA’s Critical Minerals Security Programme, stakeholders emphasised that proposals for an international minerals entity should be viewed as a potential means to address persistent coordination gaps, rather than an end in itself. A structured, inclusive international dialogue is needed to assess whether a dedicated entity would be the most effective delivery mechanism, or whether similar outcomes could be achieved through stronger coordination among existing institutions, while maintaining focus on the overall goals to add value, avoid duplication and align with established mandates. Regardless of institutional form, executives consulted on this report consistently highlighted three priorities for targeted cooperation to improve market coordination on critical minerals: –Improve forecasting across strategic minerals supply chains, including by-product minerals, through coordinated analytical platforms and shared modelling approaches across relevant intergovernmental organizations, working in close alignment with national geological surveys and statistical agencies. –Address transparency and accountability gaps, through interoperable data systems, enhanced information-sharing and closer alignment between customs authorities, financial institutions and traceability initiatives. –Ensure that shared benchmarks and performance indicators for responsible mining, processing and finance build on existing standards and reporting frameworks, improving comparability without creating new or duplicative standards. Reducing barriers to trade on the circular economy Current global trade architecture constrains the emergence of circular value chains.27 Divergent and evolving definitions, classifications, technical standards and regulatory requirements of the circular economy remain a particular challenge for businesses to navigate.28 For instance, materials classified as secondary raw materials in one jurisdiction may be treated as waste in another, while used or refurbished goods could be classified as waste in some importing countries but recognised as remanufactured products in others. These inconsistencies increase the chance of delays, rejected shipments and compliance risks, disproportionately affecting small and medium-sized enterprises and firms in developing economies.Trade nomenclature systems, designed to classify goods primarily by physical characteristics, also struggle to reflect material origin, condition or intended use of a product or material. As a result, customs authorities often cannot reliably distinguish between new, used, refurbished and remanufactured goods, or between secondary raw materials and waste, leading to additional inspections, permitting requirements and restrictions at the border. This increases administrative costs and uncertainty, and makes trusted circular flows harder and more expensive to establish.29 Example of ongoing cooperation – Framework for Circular Economy for the ASEAN Economic CommunityBOX 7 ASEAN’s Framework for Circular Economy provides a coordinated regional approach to scaling-up circular practices across Southeast Asia. Adopted in 2021, it prioritizes harmonized standards, circular innovation and improved trade facilitation. A key initiative is the planned development of a shared list of circular goods, such as recycled plastics and remanufactured electronics, to reduce tariffs, streamline customs and lower technical trade barriers. The framework demonstrates how regional cooperation can enable circular trade and strengthen economic resilience. The Future of Materials Systems: Cooperation Opportunities in a Multipolar World 27