Africa is endowed with an abundance of resources essential for the green energy transition. However, the continent must develop its national industries.
Essential minerals : Negotiating fair trade agreements
Within the framework of the Mineral Security Partnership (MSP), a group of 14 countries and the European Union (EU) are joining forces to finance the Kabanga Nickel project in Tanzania, one of the world’s largest undeveloped nickel deposits. As nations strive to secure essential minerals for clean energy technologies such as electric vehicles, batteries, and renewable energy systems, Africa’s vast resources are brought to light. However, while these partnerships promise investments, they also raise concerns about who truly benefits from Africa’s mineral wealth.
The MSP members include the United States, Australia, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the EU. No African country is part of the group, which is alarming. There is growing concern that Africa’s rich deposits of critical minerals may lead to a new wave of exploitation and green neocolonialism.
Countries like Tanzania, South Africa, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo hold a significant share of the world’s reserves of cobalt, manganese, and nickel. There is increasing fear that unequal partnerships could fuel environmental damage and widen economic inequalities. Fairtrade agreements, local benefits, and a break from historical extraction models, where external powers profit while African communities bear the costs, are needed.
Regulatory power of the EU
The EU wields significant regulatory power, enabling it to shape global economic rules that countries, including those in Africa, must follow. Through policies such as the Green Industrial Plan, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), and the Critical Minerals Act, the EU exerts influence on how African countries can participate in global trade, particularly in green industries.
While these policies aim to promote sustainability, they inadvertently create substantial barriers for African countries seeking to industrialize green and integrate into the global economy.
CBAM makes access to the EU market more difficult
CBAM imposes tariffs on EU imports based on their carbon emissions. This disproportionately affects African exporters who may struggle to meet the EU’s strict environmental standards due to a lack of resources or infrastructure. South Africa, where coal remains a major energy source, is a key example.
CBAM penalizes these countries, making it harder for them to access the EU market, and stifling their economic potential. Instead of providing support to help African countries transition to cleaner energy, EU policies risk reinforcing an unequal trade dynamic, where African and other developing countries face obstacles in developing their green economies.
Critical Minerals Act
The Critical Minerals Act highlights this problem even further. Its goal is to help the EU secure a stable supply of essential minerals, such as cobalt, which is crucial for clean energy technologies like electric vehicles and renewable energy storage. However, this act prioritizes raw material supplies from African countries without fostering value creation or industrial development within those countries.
Countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) are relegated to the initial stages of mining production – extraction and raw material export. Meanwhile, higher-value processes like refining and manufacturing occur elsewhere, primarily in Europe. This configuration mirrors colonial economic structures, where raw materials are extracted from Africa and economic benefits are reaped in Europe. This reinforces dependency and hinders African nations’ progress up the value chain.
This regulatory framework traps African countries in a cycle where they supply essential resources for Europe’s green transition but are denied the opportunity to build local industries around those same resources. The result is a modern form of « green neocolonialism », where Africa’s role in the global green economy is reduced to resource extraction, benefiting richer countries while limiting its development prospects.
China leads the pack
EU and US policies are generally seen as responses to China’s leadership in the renewable energy sector. By 2030, China’s renewable energy production capacity is expected to equal that of the US, the EU, and India combined. China currently handles more than two-thirds of global critical mineral processing and has become the world leader in green technologies.
One of the main reasons for China’s success in renewable energy is its long-standing relationship with African countries like Guinea and the DRC, where it has secured long-term supplies of essential minerals, such as bauxite and cobalt. These minerals are primarily found in these countries. In exchange, China has invested heavily in Africa’s infrastructure development and plans to support mineral value addition and industrialization projects on the continent in the short term.
Africa could leverage its relationship with China to gain greater benefits. Nonetheless, the Africa-China relationship has been one of the most advantageous for most African nations since 2000.
US capitalizes on its market power
The US exploits its significant commercial power to gain strategic advantages in the global race for critical minerals, through laws such as the Inflation Reduction Act. This legislation not only encourages domestic production of critical minerals but also the “friend-shoring” of supply chains, involving bringing manufacturing and supply chains closer to home or allied countries. This strategy aims to reduce reliance on geopolitical rivals like China, which currently dominates the global market for critical minerals.
However, this approach can be seen as a form of “green neocolonialism,” as it reinforces global power imbalances. By securing their access to essential minerals through corridors such as the Lobito Corridor in Angola a critical route for transporting minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) to the Atlantic Ocean. The US bypasses traditional trade routes currently dominated by China. In doing so, the US ensures a stable supply of these essential resources for its green transition. But it also sidelines African countries from the most lucrative parts of the value chain, such as refining and manufacturing, which could spur local industrialization and economic growth.
The US leverages its market position in a manner reminiscent of traditional colonial models, where resource-rich regions are exploited for the benefit of more powerful nations, without equitable participation or shared benefits.
African energy : X factor to balance geopolitical influences
Africa possesses immense energy production potential. With existing technologies, it could produce 1,000 times more energy than its projected demand by 2040, radically altering global energy flows.
But this potential can only be harnessed if the continent is allowed to develop its local industries. The main challenge lies in the reluctance of developed countries to transfer technologies and pay their climate debt, which could finance Africa’s adaptation goals.
Africa can meet its own energy needs. However, this can only happen if its political, financial, and social resources are primarily devoted to developing green industries. Moving away from the role of global raw material supplier and eventually purchasing finished products from the North and China.
The EU, the United States, and China engaged in this global economic war for green industrialization, believe there must be winners and losers in this fundamental economic shift towards renewable energies. They are determined to be the winners and do not care who loses, as long as it is not them. In this duel, it seems that Africa is once again the loser.
However, if it learns from its past strategic mistakes, Africa can enter this battle not as just another elephant but as a climate defender. Using its resources as negotiation tools to remind the world that no global power owns or controls the sun, the wind, and the land.
