As global leaders convene in Cape Town for the annual Investing in African Mining Indaba, a pressing question looms over the continent’s vast mineral wealth: critical for whom? While the European Union and other industrialized nations scramble to secure Africa’s cobalt, lithium, and rare earths for their energy transitions and defense industries, a quieter but far more urgent debate is unfolding about whose needs these resources should truly serve.
Africa, home to 30% of the world’s mineral reserves, has long been treated as a quarry for raw materials—a role that has fueled geopolitical rivalries but done little to lift millions out of poverty. The EU’s newly minted Critical Raw Materials Act, which promises African nations a “larger role” in local processing, frames this scramble as a partnership. Yet critics argue it risks replicating centuries of extraction-first logic, prioritizing foreign supply chains over Africa’s own development imperatives.
Take the term “critical minerals.” In Brussels, this list includes beryllium for missiles and coking coal for steel—materials tied to Europe’s industrial and security interests. But if African nations defined “critical,” the list would look starkly different: cement for housing, fertilizers for food security, chlorine for clean water. These are the minerals that underpin basic human needs, yet they’re conspicuously absent from global agendas.
The numbers tell a sobering story. Africa produces 30 million tons of mineral fertilizer annually but exports 97% of it, leaving smallholder farmers reliant on unaffordable imports. Meanwhile, the continent—with 18% of the global population—consumes just 5% of the world’s cement, stifling infrastructure development. High costs and fragmented supply chains force countries to import clinker cement, a paradox in a region rich in limestone and clay.
Innovative solutions exist but lack investment. In Brazil, crushed-rock fertilizers have slashed costs by 80% while boosting yields. Similarly, limestone calcined clay cement (LC3), a low-carbon alternative, could cut emissions by 40% and costs by 25% if scaled in Africa. Yet such projects remain sidelined, overshadowed by the rush to extract lithium and cobalt for foreign batteries.
The Democratic Republic of Congo, which supplies 72% of the world’s cobalt, epitomizes this imbalance. By 2030, Africa is projected to account for just 0.1% of the global battery market, despite mining the very minerals powering the energy transition. Latin America faces a similar plight, exporting 99% of its lithium only to reimport it embedded in finished products.
This isn’t just about fairness—it’s about survival. Affordable minerals are the bedrock of climate resilience. Weak infrastructure leaves African nations disproportionately vulnerable to disasters, while reliance on imported cement delays rebuilding and coastal protection. Without localized value chains, the continent remains trapped in a cycle of exporting raw potential and importing unaffordable solutions.
Some propose radical fixes. “Materials as a service” models, where minerals are leased rather than sold, could let producing nations earn royalties at every production stage. Others call for binding agreements requiring manufacturers to sell finished goods back to source countries at fair prices. But these ideas demand something historically scarce: genuine collaboration.
The EU’s current approach—offering African nations a “bigger slice” of mineral processing—rings hollow without parallel investments in human-centered mineral security. Of the $239 billion in global development aid in 2021, less than 0.25% went to the minerals sector. Redirecting even a fraction toward local fertilizer plants or LC3 cement factories could reshape livelihoods.
The stakes are existential. If Africa’s minerals continue to flow outward—feeding foreign industries while its own people lack housing, clean water, and fertile soil—the energy transition will falter, and inequality will deepen. True mineral security isn’t about stockpiling resources for national agendas. It’s about ensuring every community can access the materials needed to thrive.
As the Indaba unfolds, the challenge for African leaders is clear: redefine “critical” on their own terms—or risk another century of extraction without transformation. The world’s green future may depend on Africa’s minerals, but Africa’s future depends on rewriting the rules.
