Consultant: Tax and Non-Tax Incentives for Mining Downstream Viability Projects: A three-country comparative analysis

The International Institute for Sustainable Development is a globally recognized think tank with more than 30 years of experience working to solve today's greatest sustainable development challenges. We combine deep expertise across critical policy areas with a collaborative approach to research, advice, and hands-on support that delivers real-world results. Headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, we are a diverse team of over 300 experts working from offices in Canada and Switzerland as well as other locations around the world. 

IISD hosts the Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development (IGF).

The IGF's Global Mining Tax Initiative (GMTI) helps countries to increase mining revenues for sustainable development. Drawing on broad experience working with IGF member governments, the Secretariat offers this specialized and comprehensive program covering fiscal policy for the entire mining value chain, from exploration and development to mining, processing, mineral sales, and mine closure. The GMTI focuses on all aspects of fiscal policy, including taxes, royalties, and financial modelling, and has developed particular expertise on the fiscal treatment of mineral beneficiation and downstream processing.

The Challenge

As demand for critical minerals accelerates with the energy transition, a growing number of resource-rich countries are moving to capture more of the value chain domestically and attract investment. Whilst a variety of fiscal and non-fiscal tools are available, many resource-rich countries offer tax and non-tax incentives to attract investment into downstream mineral processing, from smelting and refining to further stages of value addition. These incentives can include corporate income tax holidays, accelerated depreciation, royalty relief, value-added tax and import duty exemptions, energy subsidies, infrastructure provision, export restrictions or differentiated export taxes on unprocessed ore, and guaranteed offtake arrangements.

Governments introduce these measures with the aim of capturing more value domestically, creating jobs, and building industrial capacity. However, the fiscal and non-fiscal cost of these incentives is rarely tracked systematically, and there is limited evidence on whether they actually influence investment decisions or simply reward projects that would have gone ahead regardless. Downstream processing economics are also heavily shaped by global market conditions, such as smelting overcapacity and depressed treatment and refining charges, that incentives alone cannot offset. Governments are often left weighing significant revenue foregone against uncertain and long-dated returns in jobs, value addition, and industrial development.

Our Response

To help governments make better-informed decisions on this trade-off, the IGF is developing a practice note assessing the short-, medium-, and long-term impact of tax incentives for mining downstream viability projects. The note will examine three country cases, each anchored to the critical mineral most relevant to its downstream ambitions: Zambia and copper, Brazil and iron ore or niobium, and Guinea and bauxite. Each case will be given equal depth, applying a shared analytical framework so that findings can be compared across countries with materially different fiscal capacity, market structure, and governance context.

Deliverable – Technical Input for the Downstream Incentives Practice Note

The IGF seeks a consultant, or small consultant team, to research and support the drafting of the comparative practice note. The consultant will be responsible for the following tasks:

1. Prepare a short inception note confirming, for each of the three countries, the downstream stage under review (for example, smelting and refining for copper, alumina and possible smelter-grade aluminium for bauxite, and pelletizing, direct reduced iron, or ferroniobium processing for iron ore and niobium), the incentive taxonomy to be applied consistently across cases, and the impact metrics and time horizons to be used.
2. For each of the three countries, document the incentives each received or was eligible for and assess the role those incentives played in the project's outcome relative to other determinants.
   1. Inventory and governance: For each of the three countries, compile an inventory of tax and non-tax incentives from the mining code, tax legislation, investment and industrialization laws, and any special economic zone regimes, capturing not just which incentives are available, but how they are governed: their legal basis, the granting authority, eligibility criteria and conditions, and the administrative and monitoring arrangements that shape how effective they are in practice.
   2. Projects: Identify actual downstream projects (built, under construction, planned, or abandoned), documenting the incentives each received or was eligible for and assessing the role those incentives played in the project's outcome relative to other determinants.
3. Gather available fiscal and economic data for each country, including revenue foregone estimates where they exist, capital investment, employment, and the share of raw versus processed mineral exports over time, and flag data gaps and how they were addressed.
4. Conduct stakeholder consultations in each country, engaging as relevant the ministry of finance, ministry of mines, revenue authority, investment promotion agency, state mining company, and major private operators.
5. Draft the practice note, presenting the three country cases in a common format with a synthesis chapter setting out crosscutting findings and being explicit about the limits of comparability between the cases.
6. Revise the draft in response to internal IGF review and, where relevant, feedback from country authorities.
   

Timelines

1. Inception note confirming scope, framework, and metrics for all three countries. Due: November 2026. Days: 3 days.
   
2. Literature review and international comparative summary. Due: November 2026. Estimated effort: 5 days.
3. Incentive inventory and project mapping for Zambia (copper). Due: November 2026. Estimated effort: 3 days.
4. Incentive inventory and project mapping for Brazil (iron ore/niobium). Due: December 2026. Estimated effort: 3 days.
5. Incentive inventory and project mapping for Fuinea (bauxite). Due: December 2026. Estimated effort: 3 days.
6. Preparation of questionnaire for stakeholder consultations. Due: December 2026. Estimated effort: 1 day.
7. First draft and final draft of report. Due: December 2026. Estimated effort: 18 days.

Location: Remote

IISD will not apply for residency and work permits for this position on behalf of the applicant.

Candidates must hold appropriate work authorization for locations where they expect to be based.

Application Process

Application deadline: Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis until filled.

This is a consultant position. Submissions must be in English.

To apply for this consultancy, interested applicants should submit the following:

• A CV (detailing your experience with mining fiscal policy, tax expenditure analysis, or downstream mineral processing).
• An expression of interest (one page), including proposed approach and, where relevant, coverage of the three countries by team member if submitting as a team.
  

NOTE: 

• Incomplete applications will be automatically disqualified. 
  
• Only those candidates IISD wishes to interview will be contacted.