The question of sovereignty over Africa’s mineral wealth

African leaders must devise strategies to ensure their populations benefit from the continent's mineral wealth as the global transition to green energy heightens the demand for these resources.  

Experts assert that “the African continent is a storehouse of alternative minerals for the energy crisis facing countries.” According to a report by the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI), Africa holds at least one-third of the world’s reserves of critical minerals essential for the energy transition, making it a key pillar in the global energy shift. Specific countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo in particular, are huge storehouses for the metals crucial for the energy transition.  

Similarly, a World Bank study indicated that producing the clean energy required to keep global warming below 2 degrees celsius by mid-century necessitates increasing the production of graphite, lithium, and cobalt to 3.1 billion tons by 2050—a 450% increase from 2020 levels. Despite this only 3% of the world’s energy sector investments happen in Africa. As Kenya’s president William Ruto argued in a piece with Fatih Birol for Project Syndicate, failure to include Africa more equitably in the new energy revolution will mean “the entire planet stands to suffer.” But what does equity mean when almost everything required for the transition depends on African metals and minerals?  

Africa: a reservoir of minerals  

From north to south, east to west, and even across its islands, Africa is rich in mineral reserves. Estimates indicate that the continent is a global reservoir of over 90% of platinum, 80% of coltan, 70% of tantalum, 60% of cobalt, 46% of diamond reserves, 40% of gold reserves, 12% of petroleum reserves, and 8% of natural gas reserves. 

As a result, several African countries are leading global production and export in these resources. For instance, Morocco holds 70% of the world's phosphate reserves, the Democratic Republic of Congo accounts for 70% of global cobalt reserves, and South Africa possesses significant shares of various minerals, including 46% of iridium, 22% of manganese, and 35% of chromium. 

In a related report ten years ago, the World Bank, in collaboration with the African Union, launched an initiative known as the “Billion-Dollar Map”. This project, funded with a substantial budget for geological surveys, aimed to produce an updated map of Africa’s mineral resources, harnessing advanced technological innovations to uncover new discoveries. Its initiators knew the information they wanted to make public was “highly sensitive” given the links between minerals and corporate exploitation, corruption and often conflict. The entire process, the report said, needed “high-level ownership of the entire process and the data” by the AU member states, allowing them to make “informed decisions in contract negotiations and investment policies.” 

Thus far, African governments have not, by and large, done a great job of managing and distributing the rents from their mineral wealth. Kleptocratic elites, such as the Bongo family in Gabon, often benefit at the expense of their people. In other cases, western countries and companies enlist local African agents to ensure minerals keep flowing from countries rich in them. Take, for example, the mineral deal struck between Rwanda (a country poor in mineral wealth) and the European Commission in February this year, which will help Europe smuggle so-called “blood minerals” out of the DRC, where a Rwanda-instigated violent conflict is raging because of them. President Félix Tshisekedi has said it is “a provocation in very bad taste”. Though Europe has a responsibility, and Rwanda too, not to inflame a conflict to serve short-sighted interests, the case of the DRC is a case study in many ways which exemplifies the exploitative relationship that exists between Africa and the global economy. Siddarth Kara has described it as a “colony to the world.” 

Africans eagerly anticipated the results of the World Bank “Billion Dollar Map” study according to the five-year timeframe outlined in the programme. However, discoveries were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a development that many found unacceptable.  

Thus, the latest update to Africa's mineral map remains the 2008 document Mineral Resources and Development in Africa, issued in Paris following the global financial crisis. This document identified percentages of the continent’s resources compared to global reserves: 85% of platinum, 80% of chromium, 75% of phosphate rock, 60% of cobalt, 40% of gold, and 30% of bauxite.  

Recently, French experts have reclassified minerals into four major categories crucial for the future: precious metals (Ghana, Sudan, Mali, Burkina Faso), gemstones like emerald, ruby, and diamond (Madagascar, Central Africa, Namibia, South Africa), industrial minerals such as bauxite and copper (Guinea, Zimbabwe, Congo), and strategic minerals like coltan, cobalt, and lithium, referred to as the “gold of the 21st century” for their role in advanced technology industries.  

Human glory with African labour  

The quest for wealth and resources was a crucial factor, among others, in intensifying colonial campaigns across Africa. Europeans initially viewed the continent as open for the taking by whoever arrived first. This is exemplified by the Berlin conference when the representatives from 13 European nations gathered at the behest of German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to determine the future of Africa. In an astonishing display of disregard for the continent’s existing peoples and their political entities, a blank five-metre map of Africa was displayed on the wall of the Reich chancellery.  

This enterprise was, as Joseph Conrad put it in Heart of Darkness, “not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.” It involved taking what you could “for the sake of what was to be got” from “those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses.” “What redeems it is the idea only,” he added, “an unselfish belief in the idea” that they were helping Africans by in fact expropriating their wealth. Britons and colonised people were called on, Wilfred Brunt, a travel writer said, to hail their empire’s “record of heroic deeds and noble impulses”. Victor Hugo, the Enlightenment writer, wrote that it was the white man’s job to “create a world out of Africa” which was “amenable to civilization.” Rudyard Kipling called it the “white man’s burden.” Tayyib Salih, the Sudanese novelist, examined the implications of these gestures for those on the receiving end of this gracious altruism. “The ships at first sailed down the Nile carrying guns, not bread, and the railways were originally set up to transport troops,” he said. “The schools were started so as to teach us how to say ‘yes’ in their language.” 

Some even turned to colonial archives to revisit terms such as “unknown treasure,” originally coined by French geologist Marcel Roubault to describe minerals in French colonies, and the “guarded catch,” a term from Belgian reports referring to hidden resources in their African colonies. 

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, Africa has provided a significant share of both natural resources (such as gold, silver, copper, and iron) and human resources (labour) that have fueled Europe’s industrial and commercial advancement over the centuries. Colonial empires, including Britain, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium, exploited African colonies, dividing the continent as if it were a mere cake, which splendidly enriched Europe. As Sierra Leonean activist and philanthropist Mallence Bart-Williams rhetorically asked an audience at a TED Talks event: “Why is it that 5,000 units of our currency is worth one unit of your currency, where we are the ones with the actual gold reserves?” Africa, she contends, is an aid donor to Europe, not an aid recipient, despite the contrast in wealth. This is achieved by the systemic plunder of Africa, reliably and unwittingly helped by a PR campaign that depicts the continent as surviving on the mercy of the world, when in fact the world and the west specifically depend heavily on an economic model which necessitates African disenfranchisement.  

Now, Africa faces a similar scenario with the current technological and industrial revolution. Many cutting-edge innovations rely on minerals that are abundantly found only on the continent. Essential industrial minerals, such as aluminum, nickel, manganese, and chromium, are crucial to the global transition from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources. 

Recently, there has been considerable discussion about lithium in Africa, which is crucial for the rapidly growing global battery market, expected to increase from $5.3 billion in 2023 to $13.8 billion by 2027. Meanwhile, the US Geological Survey reported that Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Namibia, and Mali together hold 4.38 million tonnes of lithium. Whilst the shape and character of the energy transition is likely to be determined by the types of governments that emerge in the west – whether electric vehicles remain optional or binding for example – it is clear that these minerals and the countries they come from will play a larger role in the global economy.  

The 21st century gold ignites Africa  

Experts from the International Energy Agency predict increased competition for essential minerals in Africa. Summits involving major countries—such as the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, India, Japan, and South Korea—along with African nations, have reinforced these expectations. Indicators suggest that global demand for copper will rise by 40%, for nickel and cobalt by 60-70%, and for lithium by 90% by 2040. 

Observers and experts caution that these projections signal a potential return of the “resource curse” to Africa. Increased demand for minerals, despite significant reserves, does not guarantee successful exploitation. In fact, it may lead to the opposite effect, potentially sparking internal conflicts. A notable example is the conflict over gold mines in Mount Amir, Darfur, Sudan, in 2013, which resulted in 1,000 deaths and displaced over 150,000 people. 

Similarly, In Congo, specifically the Kivu region, known as the “global village” in the east, 6.4 million people were killed between 1998 and 2021. Minerals continue to fuel conflict in Congo, especially in the east, where over 100 armed groups operate. Congo, despite being the poorest country globally, is the richest in resources – a chilling contrast which puts its plight into sharp focus. A study by the financial research firm Global EDGE estimated the value of untapped mineral deposits in the country at over $24 trillion, equivalent to the US gross domestic product.  

The struggle for minerals in Africa vividly illustrates a geo-economic phenomenon, highlighting the intersection of global politics and economics. This competition presents African countries with an opportunity to leverage the contradictions among major powers to maximise their gains and reap benefits. They are as desperate for Africa’s resources as African populations are for sustainable and rapid development. Russian president Vladimir Putin put it plainly when he said, “it is no coincidence we are turning to Africa… it is increasingly becoming a continent of opportunities, with immense resources and economic potential”. The UK’s new prime minister didn’t mention Africa explicitly, but has said he’d like to see the UK become a green energy superpower.  

Indeed, The Economist has acknowledged that this new scramble “creates vast opportunities” which if handled wisely, could make African countries the “main winners”.  

In order to achieve this the magazine has humbly provided the following counsel to African leaders: firstly, greater transparency is needed in African governments; secondly, African leaders need to think and act more strategically, conducting negotiations in unison to increase their leverage; and finally, the continent’s elites need to avoid picking sides amid growing superpower competition. As The Economist puts it: “They can do business with Western democracies and with China and Russia—and anyone else with something to offer. Because they have more choice now than ever before, Africans should be able to drive harder bargains.” Thinking in terms of self-interest above all, the article says competition in Africa isn’t zero-sum because if the Chinese build a bridge, American cars will drive over it.  

The Economist’s suggestions are reasonable. The problem however is that African leaders are often desperate and face security challenges, small budgets, unemployment, stagnant economies, climate change, the consequences of foreign military intervention in their countries’ or neighbourhoods all with very limited state capacity. Some countries like Mali face all of these problems simultaneously. Developed, wealthy and complex states are struggling with a much smaller load. German political scientist Jan Techau called this phenomenon which in his view is plaguing North America and Europe “sophisticated state failure”: “a functioning state in which nothing gets done.” This often leads these leaders into developing asymmetric and unhelpful relationships with foreign powers. Though African statesmen and women need to do better to protect and ensure their own people benefit from their resources, this can’t happen in an environment where vultures are swooping around rather than partners. In that regard, it is definitely correct to characterise these relationships as neo-colonial.