METI proposes letting JOGMEC take sole equity stakes in overseas critical-mineral projects without a Japanese private co-investor

Mechanism

JOGMEC's current investment/loan-guarantee rules require a Japanese private company as co-investor before JOGMEC can take an equity stake in an overseas mine-development or smelting/refining project. METI's proposal to the Mining Subcommittee would drop that requirement for projects in the 36 economic-security-critical minerals (including rare earths, nickel, manganese), letting JOGMEC invest alongside a foreign operator with no domestic private partner. JOGMEC would carry the stake for roughly 10 years post-production before selling down to private industry — a bridge intended for projects where private investment committees won't clear the risk, but where METI judges the supply-chain exposure to China (52% de facto national-security dependence, per Nikkei's framing) unacceptable.

This is a policy-direction paper presented for subcommittee discussion, not a Diet bill, cabinet order or JOGMEC Act amendment — none of those exist yet. Implementation would require either a JOGMEC Act revision or a change to its operational basic policy (基本方針) issued under METI/METI-adjacent ministries.

Downstream implications

• If enacted, removes the single largest structural bottleneck on Japanese

state participation in high-risk upstream critical-mineral assets (Africa, Central Asia, Latin America) where private Japanese trading houses have historically declined to co-invest.

• Directly responsive to China's 2025-10-09 extraterritorial rare-earth

export-control regime (MOFCOM Announcements No. 61/62) and the broader pattern of Beijing squeezing non-Chinese processing capacity.

• Watch for a JOGMEC Act amendment bill in the next ordinary Diet session, or

a revision to JOGMEC's 基本方針 (basic operational policy) issued by METI — either would be the primary-source trigger to promote this from proposed.

Open questions

• No budget figure or per-project ceiling disclosed at this stage.
• Unclear whether the sell-down after ~10 years is a binding rule or a

guideline; the source material does not specify a mechanism (auction, right-of-first-refusal to the original private partner if any, etc).