African nations are increasingly asserting control over their natural resources, renegotiating mining agreements, and prioritizing local benefits as global powers intensify competition for the continent’s critical minerals.
A Landmark Agreement in Botswana
Botswana recently made headlines by signing a historic deal with South African-British mining giant De Beers, a pact several years in the making. For many citizens, the agreement marked a turning point in ensuring that Africa’s mineral wealth yields tangible benefits at home.
Under the new arrangement, Botswana’s state-owned entities will now retain 30% of all rough diamonds from the joint venture, up from 25%. Over the next few years, this share is expected to rise to 40%. De Beers has committed an initial $75 million to the Diamonds for Development Fund, while securing mining licenses for decades, guaranteeing nearly three more decades of resource extraction.
This deal exemplifies the broader trend often called the “new resource nationalism,” where African governments seek to maximize economic gains from their mineral wealth, renegotiating long-standing agreements and redefining how partnerships with multinational corporations operate.
The Rising Global Scramble for Africa’s Minerals
Resource nationalism is gaining momentum amid heightened competition from global powers eager to access Africa’s rich mineral reserves. Industries worldwide, from electric vehicles to renewable energy, have dramatically increased their demand for raw materials.
India sent geologists to Zambia to explore copper and cobalt, critical for modern industries and the global energy transition. Zambia allocated a large area for this exploration. Meanwhile, the United States facilitated a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda, a precondition for deeper engagement in the DRC’s mineral sector, which China had already been tapping via a cobalt-for-infrastructure agreement.
Investments from Gulf nations have also surged. Emirati companies, for example, have poured hundreds of millions into gold production in Ethiopia and Mali, and over a billion dollars into Zambian copper mines, coupled with logistics infrastructure to support exports. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, alongside emerging players like Turkiye, Brazil, and Israel, are increasing their footholds in African mining.
China, Canada, and Australia continue to dominate Africa’s established mining operations, but the growing involvement of emerging powers, coupled with U.S.-China rivalry, is reshaping the continent’s mineral landscape. Washington’s investment in the Lobito Corridor—a strategic copper and cobalt export route—underscores renewed American engagement after decades of limited activity in Africa.
Strategic Shifts in African Resource Management
African governments are adopting diverse strategies to enhance control over natural resources while boosting economic benefits. These strategies include value addition, revising taxes and royalties, requiring local content, and increasing equity stakes in mining operations.
The DRC renegotiated the cobalt-for-infrastructure deal with China, increasing the country’s joint venture share significantly. China, in turn, agreed to increase its infrastructure investment. Similarly, the Botswana-De Beers agreement follows the trend of renegotiating terms to secure more local economic benefits.
Other African nations are pursuing tax and royalty reforms to capture a larger share of mining revenue. Countries like Mali, Senegal, and Zimbabwe have also prioritized value addition, processing raw materials domestically to increase export value and create employment. Zimbabwe banned raw lithium exports; Namibia followed; Gabon restricted manganese ore exports. Ghana introduced regulatory reforms, shortening mining lease terms and establishing the Gold Board to formalize gold trading and curb smuggling.
Resource Nationalism vs. Nationalization
While resource nationalism seeks to increase local benefits and control, nationalization represents a more extreme approach, where governments assume full ownership and management of resources. Post-independence Africa witnessed widespread nationalization, driven by ideology and centralized economic planning.
The current wave differs: it emphasizes negotiation, equity, and strategic control rather than wholesale state ownership. Exceptions exist in the Sahel, where military-led governments in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have adopted more aggressive measures, at times seizing mines and detaining executives, echoing Cold War-era nationalization strategies. These actions are driven by a combination of revenue needs, anti-Western sentiment, and limited access to global markets due to international isolation.
Toward a Balanced Approach
Africa’s resource nationalism represents a calculated, strategic shift rather than a blanket return to nationalization. Governments are leveraging global demand for minerals like copper, cobalt, lithium, and gold to renegotiate agreements, attract investment, and promote domestic industrialization.
The challenge lies in balancing foreign investment with local benefits. By fostering value addition, enhancing local employment, and revising mining contracts to ensure fair revenue shares, African nations aim to capture a larger slice of the mineral value chain. Meanwhile, the global scramble—from China to the U.S., India, Gulf states, and emerging powers—means that African countries are in a position to negotiate from strength.
Resource nationalism in Africa is not simply a political trend—it is a transformative economic strategy, aiming to reshape the continent’s relationship with its own mineral wealth and global partners. How African governments navigate this delicate balance between attracting foreign investment and retaining sovereignty over their resources will define the future of the continent’s mining sector.
