Ensuring Stable Mineral Beneficiation Policies

Africa is shaping tomorrow’s critical minerals value chains Africa’s role in global battery, EV, defense, and renewable energy supply chains is no longer just about extraction. Governments are using targeted policy tools to support domestic industrialization while remaining open to collaboration and investment. Our January 2026 Africa Critical Minerals Policy Brief highlights five important shifts:     DRC – Cobalt: Export quotas now regulate volumes and stabilize supply, giving the government leverage to encourage domestic processing — though partnerships are not legally mandated.    Zimbabwe – Lithium: Bans on lithium ore exports and planned bans on concentrates are driving battery-grade refining and attracting industrial FDI.     Ghana – Green Minerals: Export restrictions and mandatory beneficiation are designed to build domestic processing capacity across lithium, bauxite, and other green metals.     Namibia – Critical Minerals: Raw mineral exports require ministerial approval, making the government a gatekeeper of downstream value creation.     Pan-African Trend: Across multiple countries, local-value policies are emerging in parallel — not as a single coordinated bloc, but as a clear shift toward industrializing mineral wealth. These policies are not about coercion. They reflect development priorities, including jobs, industrial capacity, and more resilient global supply chains, which are built through partnerships, co-investment, and aligned incentives. Africa is no longer just a supplier of minerals. It is shaping the platforms on which future value chains will be built. #Africa #CriticalMinerals #ValueChains #BatteryIndustry #EVs #IndustrialPolicy #Mining #StrategicInvestment #SustainableDevelopment

African governments have adopted mineral beneficiation as a development priority, but they overwhelmingly rely on policy restrictions (export bans, beneficiation mandates) rather than financial incentives to drive value addition. NRGI research confirms this asymmetry: high-income countries average five value-addition policies per mineral, while low-income countries average just one, and that one is typically a restriction rather than an incentive. The result is predictable. Zimbabwe's 2022 lithium export ban was imposed without domestic processing infrastructure or reliable electricity, forcing a partial reversal within months. Tanzania's 2017 mineral concentrate export ban triggered a 74% collapse in exploration investment. The DRC's February 2025 cobalt export suspension had no effect on prices because the country has zero domestic cobalt refining capacity. This pattern repeats across Africa. Bold announcement. Economic damage. Quiet retreat. But beneficiation is not impossible. Botswana built diamond processing over decades. Indonesia attracted $30 billion in nickel smelters. Kamoa-Kakula started producing copper anodes in December 2025. The difference is sequence, not ambition. Five phases matter: 1. Assess honestly. Most countries score below 5 out of 10 on bankability. 2. Fix fundamentals. Stable rules cost nothing. They cut the cost of capital. 3. Fund feasibility studies. A $10 million study unlocks $1 billion in financing. A speech unlocks nothing. 4. Match projects to the right capital at the right time. 5. Protect what you build. Do not change the rules after investors arrive. Skip any step and you get Tanzania 2017. Follow the sequence and you get Botswana. The full breakdown is in my latest article: "Beyond the Export Ban."👇 #CriticalMinerals #Mining #Africa #ESG #AfricanBusiness

The UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report “Critical Minerals, Critical Decisions: Industrial Policy for the Energy Transition” (Geneva, 2026) examines how critical #energy transition minerals (CETMs)—such as lithium, copper, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and rare earth elements—drive the #global shift to low-carbon technologies like batteries, renewable power, and electric vehicles. For mineral-rich developing countries, particularly in Latin America and Africa, these resources present a historic opportunity for structural #transformation and economic upgrading. Latin America, for instance, holds over half the world’s lithium reserves and a significant share of copper production. However, the report warns of substantial #risks: high concentration in global production and processing, geopolitical tensions, environmental pressures, and the potential to deepen commodity dependence rather than foster diversified growth. Market forces alone cannot ensure inclusive or sustainable outcomes. Without deliberate intervention, developing economies risk remaining at the low end of value chains—exporting raw minerals while higher-value processing and manufacturing occur elsewhere. The report emphasizes that integrated industrial policies are essential. These policies should promote backward, forward, and lateral linkages between mining and other sectors, encourage local value addition (e.g., beneficiation and processing), build technological capabilities, and support broader economic diversification. Case studies from Latin America and Africa highlight successful policy approaches, including strategic investment incentives, regional cooperation for shared infrastructure and markets, and alignment with trade rules and investment treaties. Regional integration can help countries overcome capacity constraints and enhance resilience amid shifting geopolitics. Ultimately, UNCTAD argues that proactive #governance—embedding industrial strategies within national development plans—is key to transforming the energy transition into a driver of inclusive, sustainable development rather than a new cycle of resource dependence. In my view, this UNCTAD framework is vital for global #diplomacy by promoting equitable multilateral dialogue and reducing North-South tensions over resource access. For global #security, it diversifies concentrated supply chains (e.g., China’s REE dominance, DRC cobalt), mitigating geopolitical risks and ensuring stable low-carbon technology flows. Economically, it prevents renewed commodity dependence in developing nations while fostering inclusive growth and value addition. In #trade and #tariffs, it enables strategic tools like local-content requirements and selective tariffs within GATT/WTO bounds, rebalancing power in global value chains and investment treaties for fairer outcomes. #investment #minerals #energy #stockmarket #governance #strategy #economy #trade #security #defense

MINERAL VALUE-ADDITION POLICY MISSTEPS: A PERSPECTIVE In 2009, the AUC adopted the Africa Mining Vision. Among others, the goal was to pursue increased economic value through domestic linkages. (multiplier effect from minerals resources exploitation). However, the consensus is that little has changed. So, what is the challenge? Here's my perspective.   1. Mineral endowment is not a panacea nor a critical success factor for mineral value addition and domestic linkages, (can’t be overstated). The decades long dominance of mineral processing and metal industries by such import-dependent countries like Japan and South Korea illustrates this amply.   2. Mineral value addition and beneficiation policies should be fit for purpose. By their nature, minerals substances differ. They lead to industries with unique technologies, supply chains, markets and risk profiles. To attract FDI, value-addition policies must address unique market and industrial conditions for different minerals. Yet, countries design value-addition policies as if minerals are homogeneous. But due to lack specificity, the policies are inadequate to enable investors assess risks versus rewards and inform choices.   3. Policymakers engage the wrong prospective partners. Except a few exceptions, mining companies are not vertically integrated because their core business is extracting and trading raw commodities. So, they neither have the technical nor commercial knowhow necessary to meaningfully partner with governments in mid- and downstream industrial processing. By contrast, mineral processing, metal fabrication and manufacturing is core business of industrialists. The result is they operate in an interconnected ecosystem of R&D facilities, skills, technology, marketing, procurement and supply-chain networks. It's this integrated environment that is their distinct value proposition to governments because they can leapfrog national economies. Based on offtake agreements with miners, many such firms have economies of scale based on capabilities across a range of mineral. substances. Yet governments ill-advisedly target mining companies that operate upstream.   4. Substituting trade competitiveness with prescriptive laws is short-sighted. Export bans are expedient but not sustainable. A combination of similar laws while building competitiveness is better. Yet some countries impose prohibition of mineral exports without a long-term planning by assuming that this is sufficient. The policies neither increase institutional capacity nor attract the right profile of investors and are therefore counterproductive. So, though they can kickstart value addition, making demands that go against industry norms and project economics leads to a heightened sense of risk and capital flight. https://lnkd.in/dJ5QXsB @Sheilakhama https://lnkd.in/dxBgU-3n