In December, reports from Niger revealed that the country’s military authorities that seized power in July 2023 had taken control of uranium mining operations in the West African country. The developments were not unexpected as they were a culmination of years of tussling between Orano (previously Areva), the French government-owned nuclear firm mining uranium in Niger, and the host government amid accusations of wanton plunder. For decades, Nigeriens had complained bitterly that they had nothing to show for the vast amounts of uranium mined and exported by French firms. Niger is the world’s seventh producer of uranium, powering one in every three light bulbs in France, yet even after more than four decades of high-grade uranium exports to France, the resource-rich nation of 22 million people is ranked one of the poorest countries in the world. Experts say the explanation for this poverty is traceable to the country’s relationship with foreign firms exploiting its vast natural resources. For example, according to a report by Oxfam France and the Niger arm of Publish What You Pay, in 2010 alone, Areva’s two mines produced uranium worth more than €3.5bn ($3.6 billion), but Niger received just €459 million ($482 million), or 13% of this amount. Yet, in 2012, Areva went on to claim and receive tax exemptions worth € 320 million ($336 million) from the Nigerien government. 

Continent-wide exploitation

This has been the case in Africa since colonial times when it comes to mineral resources. But could the trend be stopped or even reversed? This is what some African governments are trying to do. From Zimbabwe to Tanzania, Zambia to Burkina Faso, Namibia to Mali, South Africa to Guinea, authorities in African countries endowed with minerals critical for the transition to green energy are revamping their mining laws to ensure they get maximum benefits in the wake of growing demand for these minerals from the Global North.

According to the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), Africa has 30% of the world’s mineral reserves, many of which, such as cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese, graphite, bauxite, nickel, and zinc, constitute the “green conflict minerals” that are key for the green transition. 

Experts say that by 2030, at least 300 new mines – for these green minerals – will need to be brought onstream if the 2050 net-zero world target for energy transmission is to be met. This has put the critical raw materials essential for driving the global green transition agenda at the forefront of geopolitical concerns. While governments in the US, China, and the European Union are emphasizing domestic production of green technologies through their industrial policies, most countries in African countries that possess these critical raw materials are resorting to resource nationalism, demanding varied levels of shareholding in extractive projects, while at the same time imposing export restrictions to promote value chain localization. Experts say this race among superpowers is motivated by considerations of resilience and security, but for the African states, the strategy aims to assert sovereignty over resources amid the ongoing wave of green development.

For example, Zimbabwe is demanding a 26% stake in new mining projects, Zambia 30%, Tanzania 50% and Namibia and Ghana 15% and 13% respectively. This is in addition to changes in tax regimes, as well as a new wave of laws restricting the exportation of raw minerals in order to promote local beneficiation.

Why resource nationalism now?

“When a natural resource gains greater strategic importance and its value increases accordingly, it attracts state intervention and control,” says Carole Nakhle, an energy expert. “That can take different forms – from higher taxes to creating state-owned enterprises with equity participation in various projects, export controls and even nationalization.” 

She added that the trend toward governments acquiring a stronger presence in the mining and a larger share of the mineral rent is not alarming in itself  “After all, they are the sovereign owners of the resource and should secure a fair share of the proceeds.”

Related News

The spirit of Bandung: 70 years on

Western expansion: Fundamental issues

Beech Warren, a mining law expert with South African law firm Beech Veltman also expects the trend toward resource nationalism to continue gaining traction in Africa. 

“The general complaint by all countries in Africa and across the world is that citizens of those countries don’t always benefit from the extraction of minerals and historically the minerals were extracted… the miners come and take them overseas and the value chain is then driven up outside the country and with minimum benefits to the citizens,” he said. 

‘Neo-colonial mindset evident’

The exploitative nature inherent in the sourcing of green minerals has raised concerns by climate justice and human rights advocates as they worry that this rush toward green transition is fast drifting away from the ideals of a just transition.

Audrey Gaughran, the executive director of the Amsterdam-based Centre for Research on Multination Corporations (SOMO) – a global public good organization – says the exploitative business model underpinning the renewable energy sector is following past patterns of exploitation and inequality that characterized the fossil fuel sector. 

“The model relies on wealthy countries backing their companies to go out and extract the critical minerals needed to power electric vehicles, solar panels, and wind turbines,” Gaughran wrote to this journalist. “The EU’s colonial mind-set is evident. It is pushing trade and investment agendas on low-income countries that have the lithium, graphite, and cobalt that EU car manufacturers and renewable energy businesses need. China and the US are also driving the competitive exploitation of resource-rich countries, with China well ahead of the game because of its domestic reserves and a lock on processing of key minerals.”

She expressed concern that Europe’s “green transition” is framed by European companies whose focus is shareholder value and profit maximization.  

“SOMO has stated clearly that the European green transition is a neo-colonial project, replicating the extractivist policies of Europe in the fossil fuel era.  Europe’s trade and investment policies and the actions of policy-makers are largely about helping EU companies to access critical minerals, for solar and wind tech, but also, massively, for electric vehicles.  The policies treat producer countries – those countries that have the minerals – as sources of raw materials, to be used to enable unequal and excessive consumption in the EU.” 

‘Writing on the wall’

However, most African governments, seeing the potential to maximize their mineral resources, are determined to make the best of the situation.

“The writing is on the wall,” said Ndabaningi Mangwana, the spokesperson of the Zimbabwe government, which has banned the export of raw chrome, lithium, and other critical minerals, in addition to demanding a substantial free-carry stake in new mining ventures. “Africa will no longer be content to simply export raw materials, and those who fail to adapt to this new reality will miss out on the vast opportunities presented by the critical minerals boom,” he said.

Mangwana said, citing experts, that the value of minerals increases exponentially through local beneficiation, hence the ban on raw mineral exports.

“For instance, the value of lithium, a key mineral in Zimbabwe, can increase by up to 500% if processed into lithium carbonate, a key component in batteries for electric vehicles. Similarly, the value of chrome ore can increase by up to 300% if smelted and processed into ferrochrome, a key alloy used in the production of stainless steel. By embracing resource nationalism, African countries can ensure that their minerals are extracted and processed in a way that benefits their citizens, rather than foreign companies.”

However, Warren, the South African mining law expert, cautioned that the problem for now is that increasing demands by African governments for local beneficiation are not matched with available local capacity. 

“Export bans do not necessarily help the situation for various reasons… when you are banning exports, it implies that internally you have got the capacity to beneficiate and not all countries have got that in place yet… so it (banning) sounds good on paper but I don’t think the countries have the capacity to beneficiate those minerals that they are banning… it is a long-term process and collaboration with other countries is vital to unlocking the potential there.”