Mohamed Okash is the Founding Director of the Institute of Climate and Environment at SIMAD University in Somalia.
A recent report by the African Finance Corp. suggests that Africa holds an approximate $29.5 trillion in mineral wealth. It is little wonder then that the continent is once again being courted for what lies beneath its soil.
For Africa, this moment feels both familiar — and fraught. Indeed, the stakes are not only about minerals; they are about whether a continent with the world’s youngest population will be shaped by decisions made elsewhere, or finally assert control over how its future is built.
It is time for African policymakers, political leaders, and regional institutions to treat minerals not merely as export commodities, but as strategic bargaining tools.
From cobalt and lithium to the rare earth minerals powering electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, and modern defence technologies, global powers are racing to secure the resources they believe will define the next century.
In this context, Africa has a strategic advantage. The continent holds an estimated 30% of the world’s critical mineral reserves, including over 55% of global cobalt, around 44% of global manganese, significant shares of platinum-group metals, and fast-growing lithium discoveries in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Ghana and others. Despite this endowment, Africa only captures less than 1% of global mineral value addition.
A regional approach to value addition
To turn this tide, African policymakers, political leaders, and regional institutions must be intentional about the terms under which these resources leave the continent.
One practical step would be adopting common beneficiation thresholds, requiring that certain minerals not be exported in raw form, but only after reaching a defined level of domestic processing, such as concentration, refining, or precursor production. Instead of shipping unprocessed lithium ore or cobalt concentrate abroad, for example, governments could require some level of upgrading at home.
-
West Africa’s first lithium mine awaits go-ahead as Ghana seeks better deal
Ghana wants to benefit from the scramble for lithium but its reliance on mining firms for revenue and expertise weakens its ability to negotiate preferential terms, experts say -
Outdated geological data limits Africa’s push to benefit from its mineral wealth
As companies flock to Africa to secure minerals for the energy transition, unreliable and century-old mapping risks stifling investment -
South Africa’s platinum mine dumps get a second look as clean energy lifts demand
Mining firms say extracting minerals from tailings is a sustainable way to boost global supplies, but local communities want to see benefits this time around
A handful of African nations have already taken such measures.
In 2023, Namibia banned exports of unprocessed lithium and other critical minerals to encourage local beneficiation. That same year, Ghana announced a lithium agreement that also included provisions for local value addition and state participation, signalling that raw mineral exports will not define its long-term strategy. And just last week, Zimbabwe suspended exports of lithium concentrates and all raw minerals. The government framed the move as a way to compel domestic processing and downstream investment rather than continued raw export dependency.
In addition, the African Union has been pushing toward a more coordinated regional approach to minerals through its African Mining Vision. Fully implementing such an approach would not only strengthen the continent’s bargaining power but prevent companies from simply shifting operations to the country offering the weakest standards.
Mineral revenues can help fund climate plans
Of course, export restrictions alone are not a silver bullet. They work best when backed by clear regulation, reliable energy supply, infrastructure investment, and regional coordination.
Aligning mineral policy with energy, climate, and industrial strategies is equally important. That means linking mining licenses to renewable energy investment consistent with the Paris Agreement, directing mineral revenues into long-term industrial or green transformation funds rather than short-term budget fixes, and using frameworks such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) to build cross-border value chains. Strong transparency standards under the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) can further strengthen public trust and fiscal stability.
Critical minerals give Africa a real chance to move beyond aid-dependent development and invest in growth driven from within. Managed well, they can help finance locally led transformation, creating jobs, building industries, and strengthening economic resilience.
A different model with young people at the table
This debate cannot be confined to boardrooms and foreign capitals, however. Africa has one of the youngest populations on Earth, yet for many young people, the future is not guaranteed, shaped by persistent poverty, inequality, conflict, and accelerating climate shocks that erode livelihoods and public trust.
-
Battery passport plan aims to clean up the industry powering clean energy
Some of the world’s largest battery makers are piloting a scheme led by the Global Battery Alliance to reward manufacturers that meet social and environmental standards -
‘America needs you’: US seeks trade alliance to break China’s critical mineral dominance
The US has signed nearly a dozen mineral deals with countries as it called for the creation of a trading bloc to diversify supply chains away from China -
Rush for critical minerals tests Europe’s resolve to protect nature
A Climate Home News investigation found that more than half of the EU’s “strategic” mineral projects lie on, or within a kilometre, of protected Natura 2000 sites
Young people must have a seat at the table. And they are already making their voices heard; speaking boldly about the future they want, sparking public conversation through entrepreneurship, organising, research, art, and policy advocacy. Indeed, the mineral agreements signed today will determine whether this generation inherits jobs and dignity, or deeper vulnerability and unfinished promises.
Africa’s future should not be secured by the goodwill of external partners, nor by repeating extractive bargains dressed up as development. It should be shaped by African leaders who choose value creation over raw export, and long-term sovereignty over short-term gain.
In a world marked by climate change and growing geopolitical rivalry, Africa has something few others possess: the resources, the market, and the moral claim to insist on a different model.
If that mineral wealth is governed with the right policies, transparency, and foresight, it can anchor green industrialisation, expand opportunity for a rising generation, and reposition Africa not as a prize in a new scramble, but as a decisive architect of a more just and sustainable global order.
The post Africa’s mineral wealth can make it an architect of a more just energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
Africa’s mineral wealth can make it an architect of a more just energy transition
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock