Geopolitics of Critical Minerals: An Analysis of the strategic gains and risks offered by the EU Strategic Partnership, Lobito Corridor and Minerals for Security deals on East and Southern Africa’s Critical Transition Minerals
 

Featured photo credit: Sipa photo by Graeme Sloan via AP).

Authors: Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre and Robert Letsatsi, Botswana Watch Organization

Background

The surging demand for minerals critical to green transition offers potential economic benefits for mineral rich countries however the dash to secure their supply chain has kicked off geopolitical interests, competition and realignments whose outcomes could have long lasting relationship with divergent unforeseen impacts. With the Eastern and Southern Africa combined as a single economic bloc, the region has the highest concentration of critical green transition minerals such as cobalt, coltan, nickel, graphite, tungsten, tantalum, copper in the world. Yet the history of governance and management of the mineral sector has never yielded very positive dividends for mineral-rich countries in the region. Minerals have fueled conflicts in the DRC and Mozambique, Debt traps in Zambia, political patronage and environmental concerns in Zimbabwe and economic inequalities in South Africa and Botswana.

So far, the EU has signed Critical Minerals Strategic Partnerships with 5 Africa green minerals rich countries and the US led Lobito Mineral Corridor partnership plan to connect the Democratic Republic Congo’s mineral rich Katanga region and Zambia with a railway line to the Angolan Port of Lobito.  Moreover, in recent months we witnessed the emergence of minerals for security deals signed between the US and Ukraine and the US with the DRC and Rwanda.  These developments offer a new geopolitical twist in this global race to secure the critical green transition minerals, pitting the developed western economic superpowers against China in the dash for Africa’s critical mineral resources. Amidst this mineral dash and geopolitical balkanization, it is feared that without strategic positioning, the Eastern and Southern Africa critical minerals rich countries could again miss out from this mineral boom.

Overview of Critical Minerals in Eastern and Southern Africa

East Africa is vastly endowed with critical minerals with Tanzania having the 5th largest graphite reserves globally (18million tons) and 1.52 million tons of high-grade nickel. With the DRC combined, the East Africa has accounts for more than 50% of Africa’s critical minerals output of graphite, copper, cobalt, coltan and nickel. The DRC holds the world’s largest cobalt reserves, accounting for about 70% global output and ranks as Africa’s largest and the world’s second-largest copper producer. The DRC government is working on policies to improve governance, local beneficiation, and attract ethical investment while reducing dependency on Chinese processing.

Despite this potential, EAC as a block has not yet maximized benefits from its mineral wealth and member states have been working on competing policies to improve governance, attract ethical investments and increase local beneficiation.

Mineral Resources in EAC

Country

Precious metal, Gemstones & Semi-Precious Metal

Metallic Minerals

Industrial minerals

Burundi

Gold

Tin, Nickel, copper, cobalt, niobium, coltan, vanadium, tungsten

Phosphate, Peat

Kenya

Gemstones, gold

Lead, zircon, iron, titanium

Soda ash, flour spar, salt, mica, chaum, oil, coal, diatomite, gypsum, meers, kaolin, rear earth

Rwanda

Gold, gemstones

Tin, tungsten, tantalum, niobium, columbium

pozzolana

Tanzania

Gold, diamond, gemstones, silver, PGMs

Nickel, bauxite, copper, cobalt, uranium, graphite

Coal, phosphate, gypsum, pozzolana, soda ash, gas

Uganda

Gold, diamond

Copper, tin, lead, nickel, cobalt, tungsten, uranium, niobium, tantalum, iron

Gypsum, kaolin, salt, vermiculite, pozzolana, marble, soapstone, rear earth, oil

Source: EAC Vision 2050 and South Sudan Development Strategy

Southern Africa holds vast deposits of the world’s critical minerals. For example, South Africa holds the largest (90%) reserves of Platinum Group Minerals (PGMs) globally[1]. South Africa and Zimbabwe account for 92% of global reserves of PGM and produced 82% of platinum globally in 2022[2].  Zambia has large Copper deposits accounting for 70% of Africa’s exports while Zimbabwe has the largest lithium reserves globally (estimated at 11 metric tons in Masvingo Province). Lesotho, Botswana, Namibia and Angola have some of the largest deposits of diamond. Angola has been diversifying beyond oil and diamonds, promoting critical minerals exploration and processing. The government is enhancing mining regulations, attracting foreign investment, and seeking strategic partnerships to develop local value chains. As one of the world’s top ten largest copper producers, Zambia is strengthening policies to boost value addition, encourage local smelting and refining, and attract Western investment. Zambia is Africa’s second-largest copper producer after Democratic Republic of Congo and the country is positioning itself as a major supplier in clean energy and EV industries.

From the above data, the Eastern and Southern Africa combined accounts for more than half of the global supply of critical minerals such as copper, coltan, platinum, graphite, manganese, nickel and lithium. In recent years there has been an increasing focus towards critical minerals with global mining exploration budgets for minerals such as lithium, copper and nickel rapidly spiking up since 2022.  This places the East and Southern Africa region at the heart of competing geopolitical interest in race for the control of critical minerals supply chains. In the midst of this rush, the Eastern and Southern Africa region countries have been competing amongst themselves and undercutting each other to attract key large-scale players in the mining sector. This race has both socio-economic, human rights and geopolitical risks and concerns.

What are the key socio-economic justice concerns in the mining sector

The history of mining in the region has not been perfect. Like in previous mining experiences generally, increased extraction of critical minerals raises serious key socio-economic justice concerns like environmental injustice, gross violation of human rights, climate change, community displacement and land grabbing, lack of transparency and accountability, corruption and unequal distribution of benefits. Such concerns have been put in even greater spotlight, where demand for these minerals worldwide began to rise and will surge over the next 20 years in support of the energy transition and technological advancements.

Mining of critical minerals is happening in new land frontiers never explored or exposed to large scale mining before. This contributes to significant environment impacts around villages and communities where they are found. Their effects range from land rights violations via new evictions to destruction of social infrastructures such as schools, hospitals and residential homes due to blasting for minerals[1]. Land degradation, dust pollution and loss of arable agricultural land through clearances for new mines affects health and livelihoods. Processing of minerals such as Lithium and Nickel requires a lot of water and this is contributing to water shortages and pollution of water sources around the mining communities[2].   

Moreover, critical minerals are driving existing and new conflicts in many African countries such as the DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Mozambique. According to UN reports, the desire to control exploitation of critical minerals are a major driver for the ongoing conflict in DRC[1].

Geopolitics of Critical Minerals

The increasing demand and competition for critical minerals is driving unending geopolitical tensions over which countries can gain access to these resources and how best to manage them.  As the geopolitical competition amongst global economic superpowers; China, US, EU, Russia, United Kingdom and new emerging powers such as Australia, UAE and India has increased in recent years. The strategic partnerships and infrastructure partnerships such as the Lobito corridor have been signed.  Recently, we have witnessed the emergence of ‘Mineral for Security deals’ such as the ones signed between the US- Ukraine and the US- DRC aimed at transferring control of a portion of critical mineral supplies in exchange for security guarantees and protection. There are many geopolitical interests and tools used at play but these are the noticeable physical manifestations of this geopolitical competition for critical minerals.

The consequences of these new geopolitical realignments are diverse but alignments and signed deals force smaller countries to surrender sovereignty of their mineral natural resources by attach their political interest to the supply of critical minerals. There has been a surge in the use of counter friendshoring measures by importing countries establishing direct partnerships with exporting countries for raw critical minerals. While this may be viewed as a positive development for minerals and commodities trade, the tilted partnerships reinforce the underdevelopment of the downstream supply chain capacity for critical minerals, especially as developed countries secure the Just Energy Transition (JET) technologies. And are not willing yet to transfer this technology to the minerals source countries. The complex dynamics and intricate geopolitical forces surrounding critical minerals therefore demands a comprehensive and forward-thinking strategy to effectively navigate the evolving global landscape[2]. Without this, the risk of securing little benefits from the critical mineral wealth for Eastern and Southern Africa is real.

The EU Strategic Minerals Partnerships and implications on Africa’s critical Minerals

Amid global geopolitical tensions, the EU has been ramping up efforts to diversify its mineral value chains. The EU has forged strategic partnerships with critical minerals resource-rich African nations like Tanzania, Namibia, DRC, Zambia and Rwanda. To date the EU has established partnerships for critical raw materials with at least 14 countries[3]. These partnerships are designed to secure access to critical minerals at various stages of the value chain, strengthen European industrial resilience and accelerate the green transition of its economies while supporting Africa’s own industrialization ambitions. The EU has further established a multistakeholder partnership with the US to develop the Lobito corridor project[4]. While these partnerships are considered vital in ensuring improved mineral governance and securing investment inflows into Africa’s mining sector, on the flipside they are viewed controversially as a strategic path for continued EU dominance by tightly tying Africa as a source of raw critical materials to feed Europe’s industrial base.

The EU strategic minerals partnerships have a prospect of placing Africa as a global player in the critical minerals space and potentially securing Africa’s contributing towards a net zero future. According to the EU, the strategic partnerships will involve cooperation on supply chain integration, infrastructure financing, research and innovation, capacity building, and sustainable sourcing of minerals. With strategic leverage and tactful negotiation, Africa can potentially wean itself off the largely exploitative contracts previously signed with mining companies that were economically biased, had disregard for human rights and responsible sourcing. Without tearing the existing contracts apart, Africa can establish a new progressive framework to guide its mining

However, the EU mineral partnerships are viewed as inherently biased and pursued with less consideration of socio-economic and environmental considerations. According to SOMO, the EU strategic partnerships are not good for addressing climate change and net zero. Despite the green tint, the EU is focused on the minerals and less on the effects. Europe is ultimately pursuing a resource-intensive growth strategy to bolster its industries in profiting from low-emission technologies. This prioritization of growth neglects that affluent countries’ overconsumption of resources is the root cause of climate change and the major driver of biodiversity loss, pollution, and waste. Worse, the unfavorable trade regimes [secured under the partnerships] can prevent poor resource-rich countries from climbing up global value chains

The Lobito Corridor Initiative and its implications

The Lobito Corridor is a 1 300 km rail and infrastructure project stretching from the Angolan port of Lobito to mining regions of Kolwezi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Zambia. Financed by the US and its EU allies, the project provides an alternative route to transport minerals such as cobalt and copper, helping to diversify mineral supply chains in the region.

According to the US Department for Finance Corporation (DFC), the Lobito corridor initiative is not just any traditional development aid project but a strategic initiative aimed at strengthening critical mineral supply chains by countering China’s dominance[1]

Justification for the Lobito Corridor Project

According to the US Department for Finance Corporation (DFC) the Lobito Corridor project is poised to spur trade, industrialization, and regional integration across Southern Africa. The advanced technologies required for the industries of the future depend on reliable access to copper and cobalt. These minerals are essential for batteries, wind farms, electric vehicles, as well as energy transmission and distribution.

But critical mineral supply chains are threatened by Chinese dominance. Companies based in China own or operate as much as 80 percent of the critical mineral production in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), much of which is sent to China for processing. And China is pushing new projects to further secure its dominance, adding to the estimated $1 trillion it has spent on its global infrastructure initiative known as its Belt and Road Initiative, or BRI. 

Additionally, many of the world’s most mineral-rich countries such as the DRC lack the infrastructure to transport growing volumes of these materials to major coastal ports where they can be exported to markets around the world. DRC is the second-largest global producer of copper, and the largest producer of cobalt with a 70 percent global market share[2].

Key gains from Lobito Corridor Initiative

Offers an opportunity of revitalizing defunct infrastructure in a region severely affected by war. A railway built more than 100 years ago connecting mining sites in the DRC to the Lobito port in Angola was largely destroyed during the Angolan civil war. A reconstructed railway suffered from poor construction and upkeep. As a result, these critical minerals are currently transported by heavy-duty trucks to ports in South Africa and Tanzania over roads that can take months to travel. Growing demand for critical minerals threatens to exacerbate the problem. Analysts predict that cobalt demand will exceed the pace of production before the end of 2024 and thereby justifying the construction of new infrastructure projects such as the Lobito Corridor project[3].

The Lobito corridor project provides an opportunity for opening up new investments into the region.  According to the initial plans the US Finance Cooperation would provide a $553 million loan to the Lobito Atlantic Railway to finance the upgrade and rehabilitation of more than 800 miles (1,300 km) of the rail connecting the city of Luau on the border of the DRC to the port city of Lobito in Angola, as well as the upgrade and rehabilitation of the mineral port in Lobito.

The investment is intended to improve the cost-effectiveness, speed, and resilience of global supply chains by upgrading and rehabilitating the railway in Angola that increases the efficiency and reliability of transportation out of the DRC’s mines. And it ensures China will not secure a monopoly on critical minerals access and transit routes in this key region.  

Over the last decade, China had subsidized new construction and upgrades to rail systems in the region, including in Angola, DFC’s neighbor to the west and home to several key coastal transportation hubs, such as the Port of Lobito and the Benguela Railway that extends eastward from it into the DRC. Chinese companies and China-linked entities have worked to control regional transportation systems and restrict access to U.S. and allied businesses, creating challenges to investments in markets like the DRC. However, those projects have suffered from what The Wall Street Journal described as “poor construction and upkeep,” leading to “rundown stations, malfunctioning safety systems offline servers and frequent derailments on the train line.”

DFC’s investment will diversify away from Chinese-controlled economic corridors. It will reinforce railway tracks and bridges along the route and add containers, trains, and equipment such as mobile cranes and forklifts. These investments are expected to increase Lobito’s transportation capacity from 0.4 million metric tons per year as of the end of 2024 to 4.6 million metric tons. It will also benefit the local economy, where minerals make up 90 percent of the DRC’s total exports, accounting for 40 percent of its GDP and $30 billion in value as of last year.

 Through the upgraded railway, port, and corresponding sea routes, exports for these critical minerals to global markets are expected on average to cost 30 percent less and take 29 fewer days. Lobito and projects like will bolster trade access in and around Angola. The coordination led by DFC—which is poised to expand to new projects— presents a boom for U.S. industries, with Angolan organizations already looking to source equipment from the United States for mining, storage, and other integral elements of the project. 

More broadly, the Lobito project strengthens Angola’s role as a key security and economic partner of the United States and as a leader in Sub-Saharan Africa working to resolve issues—including those that affect American interests such as the peace process in eastern DRC. Angolan President João Lourenço also recently assumed the role of chairman of the African Union, and the Lobito project is considered as a potential lever for influencing positions and securing other strategic projects across Africa.  

According to the US DFC, within Angola, the project will upgrade critical infrastructure to international standards and will ensure that access to rail remains open to all paying customers. It is expected to create a 30% reduction in shipping costs and 29 day reduction in shipping time as a result of the DFC’s investment in the Lobito Atlantic Railway. Moreover, it is expected to generate significant local income there, with total local procurement of goods and services expected to reach more than $350 million within the first five years.  

And it is expected to create more than 1,000 new full-time jobs for Angolans, growing the existing workforce from 434 to more than 1,500. Other support projects will benefit from the investments in the Lobito Corridor.   For example, a $10 million loan from DFC to Seba Foods Zambia Ltd. is designed to support the expansion of its food production and storage capacity for maize-based, soya-based, and other nutritious and affordable consumer food products, strengthening the food value chain in Zambia, which is on the eastern end of the Lobito Corridor. Seba Foods was the first U.S. Government-financed food security and agribusiness-focused investment following the announcement of the vision for the Lobito Corridor. 

The Lobito Corridor initiative exemplifies the competition, with the US and EU aligning efforts to establish stronger supply chains. China, already investing heavily, aims to enhance its Belt and Road Initiative along the corridor. The US has indicated that China can still utilize the railway for its exports. The US-China cooperation on this project may create new avenues for sustainable development in Africa. If the two superpowers align their Lobito strategies, it could accelerate Africa’s green industrialization. Jointly-driven investments would align with Africa’s broader economic growth and sustainable development goals. Africa’s potential for growth will attract both powers, as both seek competitive positions within the Lobito Corridor. China has already recently signed a $1 billion deal to restore the TAZARA railway[4].

Key concerns of the Lobito Corridor Initiative
CSOs are concerned the Lobito Corridor project exemplifies the geopolitical interests to serve the US and EU interests rather than Africa (Zambia Angola & DRC’s) interests. As clearly stated by the US and the EU, the Lobito corridor initiative is intended to strategically increase the US and EU’s dominance and security of access to Africa’s critical minerals supply chains and diversifying Africa away from Chinese-controlled economic corridors. This project is therefore largely driven by external interests and Africa finds itself in the middle of these competing geopolitical interests.

The project exacerbates the colonial hinterland to port extractive infrastructure, designed with a major purpose of extracting and transporting Africa’s resources as raw materials from the hinterland to the port ready for export to benefit elsewhere. The Lobito initiative railway project has no interconnection with other transport nodes to facilitate in country mobility and connectivity to other economic sectors. It is therefore designed with an exploitative lens driven with an ‘extract and take away’ mindset, with less beneficial considerations to the broader national public concerns. Financing of arteries linking the railway to other transport infrastructures would address significant infrastructure problems affecting millions of people across the countries in the corridor. For example, an East-West railway connection could link Lobito and TAZARA routes, creating Africa’s first transcontinental railway. Such a corridor could bridge the Atlantic and Indian ocean[1].

The project will be financed with loans acquired from the US and EU, whose payment will be recouped from revenues from the operations and sale of the critical minerals. This is ironical as the lenders will be the major beneficiaries from the mineral export. The long-term net effect or benefit from these may be negligible as the debt burden for the corridor countries (Angola, DRC and Zambia) will increase and they may be forced to pay using their minerals resources.

The strategic partnerships and Lobito corridor project have no plans to investment in critical minerals value addition with in the participating countries. As a consequence, the project may consolidate Africa’s exclusion from the critical minerals global value chain, locking Africa to lower tier of the value chain as a supplier of critical raw materials.   Current studies and evidence show that Africa integration in the Global Value Chain is largely through forward linkages whereby it primarily provides unprocessed raw materials to feed the industrial development and economic prosperity elsewhere.

For example , the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and UNCTAD data shows that the DRC and Zambia refine only about 7% and 3.5% of all the copper produced, which is far much lower than their share in the global production.[2] In recent years China has emerged as the leading processor of critical minerals (Lithium, Copper, Nickel & Cobalt) implying that Africa’s minerals are exported raw, processed and re-exported back to Africa as intermediary or finished goods.

Moreover, the Lobito corridor does not promote intra Africa trade in minerals and therefore runs contrary to Africa’s mineral and economic development ambitions as articulated in the various propositions of the Africa Unions Agenda 2063 and the Africa Mining Vision particularly in regards to regional cooperation and beneficiation. The USGS report for 2023 shows that African Minerals are largely traded with countries outside Africa. For instance, the DRC accounts for 77% of Africa’s cobalt exports, however, its intra Africa links are few. This suggests its trade is largely more with countries outside the continent. Several countries with insignificant cobalt reserves and production re-export more beneficiated cobalt through regional networks as indicated in the table below, reaping bigger economic benefits from added value. 

Table showing Africa Major Critical Minerals Export Destination, Intra Africa Trade and Linkages

Africa Critical Mineral

Top Five Global Export Destinations

Africa trading partners

Intra Africa trade share

Implication

Cobalt

China (72%), Belgium (2%), Malaysia (2%), Switzerland (2%)

Zambia, Namibia, Morocco, Congo, Madagascar, South Africa, DR Congo, Mali, Tanzania, Mozambique, Uganda, and Kenya.

South Africa (1%), DRC (89% to Zambia, Namibia and Morocco), Congo (4.4%), Zambia (3.5%)

The top five global destinations consume 80% of Africa’s cobalt

More of DRC’s cobalt is re-exported by other countries.

Graphite

China (28%), Germany (15%), India (9%), USA (7%) and Malaysia (7%)

Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland, Niger, Guinea, Tanzania, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Sudan, Namibia, Tunisia, Morocco, Senegal, Mozambique, Cameroon, Egypt, 30 Algeria, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Mauritius, Ghana, Botswana, Libya, Sierra Leone, Equatorial Guinea, and Mali.

South Africa (51%), Tanzania (14%), Seychelle (12%), Kenya & Morocco (3%).

The top five global destinations account for 64% of Africa’s Graphite export

These countries export to fewer African countries. Tanzania only has eight intra-Africa graphite export links (Angola, South Africa, Mozambique, Zambia, DR Congo, Burundi, Comoros and Madagascar, while Seychelles has one (South Africa)

Lithium

France (7%), USA (5%), Russia (1%) Germany & China (2%)

36 African Countries

DRC (77%), South Africa (15%), Morocco (1%), Tanzania (1%)

The top five consume 15% of Africa total lithium exports from at 36 countries

DRC has the lowest intra exports links to Africa while South Africa, Kenya and Morrocco lead in number of intra Africa export links.

Managanese

China (58%), India (10%), Norway (5%), Japan (4%), and Russia (3%)

31 African Countries

Morocco (42%), Zambia (11%), South Africa (20%), Ghana (1%)

These countries account for about 80% of Africa’s Manganese exports outside Africa.

Morocco, South Africa, and Zambia (in consecutive order) emerge as countries with the highest intra-Africa export shares for Manganese.

South Africa and Kenya have the highest intra-Africa export links.

Platinum Group of Metals (PGM)

United Kingdom accounting for about 28%, Japan 17%, Belgium about 15%, United States of America 12% and Germany 9%.

45 Countries

Zimbabwe (86%), Ghana and DRC (3%),

These countries account for about 89% of Africa’s PGM export outside the region

South Africa has the highest intra-Africa export links to thirteen countries, followed by Swaziland and Malawi

 

In the long run, the Lobito corridor project will potentially weaken further existing limited intra Africa linkages and collaborative projects by setting up or creating an unfavorable competition for already existing infrastructure such as the Tanzania-Zambia Railway (TAZARA) and the Ports of Dar es Salaam, Beira in Mozambique and Durban, which have recently received major uplifts with costly loans from China and other global financial institutions such as the World Bank.

The Lobito Corridor project excludes itself from other major problems facing mining in the region, including addressing previous economic injustices and human rights related issues, the long-term effects of war and climate change. Because of the fear of being edged out by China, the Lobito corridor project does not come with stringent requirements and expectation for adherence to high human rights standards by the partner countries.

Mineral for Security Deals and implications on Africa’s critical minerals.

Amidst the ongoing geopolitical interest for critical minerals, recently we have witnessed the emergence of Minerals for Security Guarantee deals as a tool for control of access to critical minerals supply chains. On 30th April 2025 the US signed a Minerals for security deal with Ukraine and in June, the US signed a Mineral for Security deal with the DRC and Rwanda. The deals provide access to critical minerals in return for security guarantees from the US. Although the deals have been covered with a peace and conflict resolution imperative, they are essentially aimed at securing the US’s access to critical minerals.

According to Global witness, the deals like the extraction and trade of some critical minerals intensify new geopolitical tensions, reinforcing long-standing patterns of exploitation[3] including conflicts. The Trump Ukraine deal revealed a connection of critical minerals to the Russia and Ukraine war and how critical mineral natural resources in Ukraine have become a key bargaining chip in international diplomacy between the US and Russia.

In fact, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo reached out to the Donald Trump administration with a Ukrainian-style proposal in February 2025 in response to the rapid advance of the M23 rebel group in the east of the country. At stake are the mineral riches of North and South Kivu provinces, a major but highly problematic source of metals such as tin, tungsten and coltan[4].

According to different sources, this deal was presented as a pacification tool for eastern DRC and once signed could boost Rwanda’s processing of Congo minerals while providing the US with an assured source of processed critical minerals required to support its industrial technology and security needs.

The full contents of deal are not readily available to the public but leaked versions mentioned requirements for withdrawal of Rwandan Forces from the Eastern DRC and integration of the M23 belligerent factions into the DRC’s forces.

The mineral deals essentially consolidate a firm grip of the US on access to DRC’s critical minerals, closing off competition against other potential rival countries such as China and Russia, there by exacerbating grounds for economic injustice, opacity, lack of transparency and potential for unfair mining deals, biased in favour of the security guarantors. Mineral deals are tainted with opacity, designed with a biased exploitative and a perceived neocolonial mindset aimed at rewarding the dominant superpower and the aggressor against the victim. They are negotiated behind closed doors and their full terms are not availed neither to the public nor the citizens of the mineral rich country.

According to Kambale Musavuli of the Centre for Research on Congo-Kinshasa, the US brokered deal between the DRC and Rwanda is wild. The US is getting access to $2 trillion of worth of DRC minerals in exchange for forcing the withdrawal of Rwandan backed M23 militias. That is one tenth of the DRC’s total mineral wealth, more than any single foreign country claims. This is strange because analysts of the region have long argued that the US effectively enabled Rwandan support for the M23 in order to destabilise the DRC, prevent a functional state from arising and achieving sovereignty over its mineral wealth, and thus ensure minerals stay cheaply available for US firms. If this analysis is correct then the US has just acquired $2 trillion mineral rights in exchange for stopping a conflict that it has effectively supported. Consider also how medi discourse is playing out. Remember that in 2008 Chinese firms signed a deal with the DRC to obtain $9billion in minerals in exchange for infrastructure development. Western media went wild with narratives of “Chinese colonization”. Now the US has secured minerals deal 200x larger and the media narrative is all about how the US brings “peace”

The mining security deals were negotiated in secrecy led by political elites and diplomats. As such citizens are disempowered from having a say in the future management of a vital sector, whose benefits are signed off to another country by a few, dashing hopes for citizens stake into a better future.

The minimum threshold of minerals signed off in the form of US mining companies investing in the critical minerals sector is not clear and whether the DRC has any stake at what percentage in the minerals extracted by the US companies is largely unknown.

The deals potentially open up a can of worms for future similar deals, covering natural resources such as forestry, wild life management and critical infrastructure such as ports, airports, water ways and food supply chains.

Moreover, the deals may not be a permanent solution to ongoing conflicts. The mineral for security deals largely covers security guarantees against ‘external aggression’ and may not be fitted for dealing with internal political and socio-economic drivers for conflict such as historical injustices, land and citizenship rights, regional economic imbalances, bad governance and banditry. Local insurgent rebel groups and militias may continue to pursue their political and economic ends outside the ambits of the security deal. For example, on the very day that the US-DRC and Rwanda deal was signed, one of the rebel groups, Codeco militia attacked and killed at least 10 people at a displaced people’s camp in Ituri province.  There are more than 100 rebel groups in Eastern DRC. The M23 which was largely mentioned in the US deal has already described it as a tiny part’ of a solution to the conflict.

Further, the security guarantees provided under the deal are not clear. It is not clear what these mean and when and how such guarantees can be deployed. For instance, does security guarantee mean supply of arms or armed mercenaries, military intervention or alliances with US soldiers fighting alongside or against the aggressor. Moreover, it is not clear whether the US can be directly involved in fighting internal rebel groups and insurgents without triggering nationalistic and constitutional challenges, driving internal political conflicts further.

By nature, deals of this nature are long term and cannot easily be breached without consequences. The terms and consequences for such breach are less known to the public. The conditions for termination or renegotiation are equally not known.  Therefore, the mineral security agreement essentially locks countries towards dealing with one major economic superpower whose primary interest is access to the country’s critical mineral wealth.

Conclusion

The EU strategic partnerships, the mineral security guarantee deals and the Lobito project may entirely not be a bad idea, however their implicit risks cast shadows about their potential in advancing Africa’s critical minerals and economic development goals. The key concerns around these strategic mineral alliances and the Lobito Corrido are embedded within the broader critical development discourse of recolonization and recolonization, sovereignty, security and resource nationalism, state capture, perpetration of socio-economic injustices by dominant global capital and Africa’s wealth transfer. Specific concerns include risks for increasing mineral bad governance and economic injustices and vulnerabilities, geopolitical tension, and the need to pursue sustainable mining practices.

With these strategic partnerships, mineral for security deals and the Lobito railway in place, these countries are locked into long-term commitments to ensure the supply of metals. Without good governance and value addition,  Africa’s critical minerals will benefit others elsewhere. Over dependence on certain countries can pose risks when such countries face political instability or become embroiled in geopolitical disputes drawing in Africa’s mineral rich countries in their midst. For these alliances to be mutually beneficial, they must ensure that the resources are accessed equitably, that benefits are fairly distributed, and that environmental impacts are kept to a minimum for their sustainability in the long run.

Recommendations
  1. The strategic partnerships must go beyond critical minerals exploitation but venture into addressing broader social economic development concerns of the people in the mineral rich countries.
  2. The Lobito Corridor initiative must avoid the ‘hinterland to port’ colonial legacy by establishing railway transport interconnection nodes to other existing railway infrastructure so as to improve connectivity across the project countries to ease the bigger infrastructure challenges that these countries face.
  3. The strategic partnership and Lobito Corridor must encourage value addition by investing in processing and exporting of value-added products, so as to generate wealth at source.
  4. Africa Mineral rich countries must explore and establish south to south partnerships, thereby increasing their leverage and power to negotiate with external partners and mining companies
  5. The EU strategic partnerships and the Lobito Corridor project must not exacerbate the role of minerals as drivers of conflict by supporting and buying minerals from conflict zones.
  6. Moreover, these alliances must ensure that the resources are accessed equitably, that benefits are fairly distributed, and that environmental impacts are kept to a minimum for their sustainability in the long run.
  7. The Minerals for security deals must be transparent and not biased exclusively in favour of the dominant economic super power.
  8. The Minerals for Security deals must avoid advancing human rights abuses by US mining companies under the US government protection
  9. The strategic partnerships, security deals and their associated projects must promote national dialogues and citizens participation in governance of critical minerals and mitigation of harm from mining
Selected References

Andreoni et al., (2023) Critical Minerals and routes to diversification in Africa: Linkages, pulling dynamics and Opportunities in medium-high tech supply chains; Backup paper commissioned by the UNCTAD Secretariate for the 2023 edition of the Economic Development in Africa Reports

Andy Home, After Ukraine deal, US turns its critical minerals gaze to Africa, available at https://www.reuters.com/markets/, accessed on May 22

EITI; Using Transparence Benefits EU Mineral Partnerships; Accessed via https://eiti.org/blog-post/using-transparency-benefit-eus-mineral-partnerships

Global Witness; Critical Minerals Fuel Conflicts available via  https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/transition-minerals/the-critical-minerals-scramble-how-the-race-for-resources-is-fuelling-conflict-and-inequality/#:~:text=How%20are%20critical%20minerals%20driving,communities%20in%20resource%2Drich%20nations. Accessed on 15 May 2025

IMPACT, Actors Must Suspend Sourcing Minerals Financing Armed Groups in Democratic Republic of Congo, available at https://impacttransform.org/, accessed on May 23, 1:46pm

[1] https://www.railway.supply/en/us-china-lobito-corridor-investments-drive-africas-economic-and-sustainable-growth/

[2] Andreoni et al., (2023) Critical Minerals and routes to diversification in Africa: Linkages, pulling dynamics and Opportunities in medium-high tech supply chains; Backup paper commissioned by the UNCTAD Secretariate for the 2023 edition of the Economic Development in Africa Reports

[3] Global Witness; Critical Minerals Fuel Conflicts available via  https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/transition-minerals/the-critical-minerals-scramble-how-the-race-for-resources-is-fuelling-conflict-and-inequality/#:~:text=How%20are%20critical%20minerals%20driving,communities%20in%20resource%2Drich%20nations. Accessed on 15 May 2025

[4] Andy Home, After Ukraine deal, US turns its critical minerals gaze to Africa, available at https://www.reuters.com/markets/, accessed on May 22

[1] US International Finance Cooperation https://www.dfc.gov/investment-story/strengthening-critical-mineral-supply-chains-countering-chinas-dominance#:~:text=But%20critical%20mineral%20supply%20chains,sent%20to%20China%20for%20processing.

[2] ibid

[3] ibid

[4] https://www.railway.supply/en/us-china-lobito-corridor-investments-drive-africas-economic-and-sustainable-growth/

[1] IMPACT, Actors Must Suspend Sourcing Minerals Financing Armed Groups in Democratic Republic of Congo, available at https://impacttransform.org/, accessed on May 23, 1:46pm

[2] ibid

[3] https://eiti.org/blog-post/using-transparency-benefit-eus-mineral-partnerships

[4] https://ecfr.eu/event/critical-minerals-and-eu-africa-strategic-partnerships-where-do-we-stand/

[1] BHRT: Briefing on “Human Rights Incidents in Transition Minerals; Quarter 1: January-March 2025

[2] Emerging Human Rights Implications of Transition Minerals Extraction and processing: Case Studies from Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Zimbabwe

[1] https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202505/critical-minerals-and-metals-strategy-south-africa-2025.pdf

[2] https://unctad.org/system/files/non-official-document/edar2023_BP1_en.pdf

Webinar on Geopolitics of Critical Minerals and implications for Eastern and Southern Africa

Topic: An Analysis of the strategic gains and risks offered by the EU Strategic Partnership, Lobito Corridor and Minerals for Security deals on East and Southern Africa’s Critical Transition Minerals

The surging demand for minerals critical to green transition offers potential economic benefits for mineral rich countries however the dash to secure their supply chain has kicked off geopolitical interests, competition and realignments whose outcomes could have long lasting relationship with divergent unforeseen impacts.

With the Eastern and Southern Africa combined as a single economic bloc, the region has the highest concentration of critical green transition minerals such as cobalt, coltan, nickel, graphite, tungsten, tantalum, copper in the world. Yet the history of governance and management of the mineral sector has never yielded very positive dividends for mineral-rich countries in the region. Minerals have fueled conflicts in the DRC and Mozambique, Debt traps in Zambia, political patronage and environmental concerns in Zimbabwe and economic inequalities in South Africa and Botswana.

This webinar will provide an overview of the critical mineral wealth in Eastern and Southern Africa with a particular focus on the strategic gains and risks that geopolitical initiatives such as the EU Strategic Minerals Partnerships, the Lobito Corridor and emerging minerals for security deals offer. It is estimated that the mining industry needs to invest $1.7 trillion over the next 15 years to extract and supply enough metals for renewable energy and Africa possess almost half of these.   

The webinar will discuss the geostrategic machinations at play by superpowers such as the US, Europe, Russia and China in the context of the dash for control of critical minerals for the green transition and the current extractive governance challenges facing the region. While strategic alliances may not entirely be a bad idea, there are concerns over the underlying possible geopolitical, security and perceived neocolonial undertones that may come with these initiatives.

And how the historical socio-economic justice concerns of similar geopolitical jostling, security guarantees at the Berlin conference and hinterland to port initiatives contributed to the colonial exploitation of Africa’s resources for benefits elsewhere. Moreover, the mineral for security deals are tainted with opacity, designed with a biased potentially exploitative and a perceived neocolonial mindset aimed at rewarding the dominant superpower and the aggressor against the victim in exchange for its resource. The minerals for security deals are negotiated behind closed doors and their full terms are not availed neither to the public nor the citizens of the mineral rich country.

Amidst this mineral dash and possible geopolitical balkanization, it is feared that without strategic positioning, the Eastern and Southern Africa critical minerals rich countries could again miss out from this mineral boom.

Our expert speakers at this webinar will delve deeper into this topic, highlighting on the possible risks and benefits that the region can garner from these initiatives and measures the region can take so as to avert the risks and maximize benefits from these partnerships. This webinar is organized by the Governance and Economic Policy Centre in Collaboration with Botswana Watch Organisation. 

Our distinguished speakers will be

  1. Ketakandriana Rafitoson, Executive Director, Resource Justice Network (formerly PWYP): Key concerns for critical minerals Governance and our desired sustainable future. Dr Ketakandriana is a political scientist, researcher, activist, and human rights defender with distinguished career in anti-corruption, where she served as leader of Transparency International Chapter in Madagascar. Her work mainly focuses on issues of resource governance, anti-corruption, citizens’ participation, good governance and democracy.

 

  1. Adriano Nuvunga, Executive Director, Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CDD), Mozambique: The Geopolitics of critical minerals, neocolonial extractivism and conflict. Prof Adriano Nuvunga is a Mozambican scholar, anti-corruption advocate and human rights defender. He is the director of the Center for Democracy and Human Rights (CDD), an organization that promotes democracy and protects human rights in Mozambique and Professor of professor of political science and governance at the Eduardo Mondlane University in Maputo. He has widely published on resource governance and violence in Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado province.

 

  1. Mr Robert Lestatsi, Executive Director, Botswana Watch Organisation; Assessing the Lobito corridor project and Africa’s desired benefits from critical mineral wealth. Robert Letsatsi is the Executive Director of Botswana Watch (BW), an organization focused on promoting transparency and accountability in Botswana. He is also involved with the PWYP coalition in Botswana and the UNCAC Coalition, an international anti-corruption network. Additionally, he has been involved in advocacy of mineral resource governance and training on human rights violations, in collaboration with Ditshwanelo – The Botswana Centre for Human Rights.
  1. Moses Kulaba, Executive Director, Governance and Economic Policy Centre, Moderator. Mr Moses Kulaba is a Governance and political economist, tax law expert and economic diplomat with more than 20 years of active service in international public, private and civil society sector.  Prior to joining GEPC he served as the East Africa Regional Manager for the Natural Resources Governance Institute, where he worked with various stakeholders including governments to advance governance of the extractive sector. Has served on the international board of the EITI and in consultancy roles for DFID , the EU and the UN on governance, extractives and peace processes in Eastern and Africa Great Lakes region.

 Date: 30th July, 2025

Time: 12pm EAT, 11 AM Gaborone (CAT) and 9 AM Lagos

Login:  https://us05web.zoom.us/j/84450912293?pwd=lwabYIwsvJ27A8bP0v8hVQpaUOaYQ3.1

Meeting ID: 844 5091 2293

Passcode: 7XFcHc

Critical Minerals Certification: Do Mineral Certification Mechanisms Reduce harm? A Look at the Kimberley Process, ICGLR, RMI, and OECD”

Authors:  Moses Kulaba and Roger Vutsoro, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

 

This short analytical study explores the existing   national, regional and global certification mechanisms such as the Kimberly Process, ICGLR, OECD Due diligence measures, Responsible Mining Initiatives in the quagmire of improving of minerals governance. It entangles and assesses the increasing perceptions (based on evidence from countries such as the DRC) that the current certification regime is running dangerously obsolete, not designed for critical minerals and thus needs a review and realignment for new purpose, including proposing measures that go beyond the current regional certification.

Decades ago, mineral certification was mooted as a solution to addressing the chronic problems of illegal mining, mineral smuggling and mineral driven conflicts, economic injustices and impunity in mineral rich countries.  To this regard, regional and global mineral certification mechanisms were developed with countries and mining companies required to sign up to these new certification principle and mechanisms. However, decades after, minerals continue to be drivers of conflict and harm in many countries.

As the appetite for Critical or Transitional minerals required for the green and clean energy industrial technology gains gusto momentum, there are concerns that this new mineral dash may exacerbate corruption, conflict and suffering in critical minerals rich countries. Apart from calls to establish regional value chains, there is evidence to suggest that a proper global certification mechanism should be put in place to ensure responsive sourcing of critical minerals and that their extraction does not lead to further harm.

What is mineral certification

 

Mineral certification is a process that verifies the origin and legitimacy of minerals, ensuring they are not associated with conflict or human rights abuses. It involves tracing minerals from the mine site to the final point of export and confirming they are free from illegal activities. This helps to prevent the financing of armed groups and other illicit activities linked to mineral extraction. This certification involves a thorough verification process to trace the minerals’ origin and verify they are free from illegal financing, armed group involvement, and human rights abuses.

At face value, this sounds like a good measure, however existing mechanisms of a similar nature such as the Kimberly process, ICGLR certification initiative and the OECD Due diligence measures have not succeeded in fully addressing the issue of conflict minerals and mineral smuggling. In Countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mozambique, minerals continue to be a driver of conflict and mineral smuggling to neighboring countries is still rife.  This therefore puts to question the efficacy of the existing global certification mechanism in strengthening governance, regulating supply, improving ethical mining business conduct and reducing harm from extractive resources.

Existing major Regional and Global Mineral Certification regimes

 

The Kimberly Process Certification System (KPCS)

The Kimberly Process (KPCS) is a global standard certification process established in 2003 by the United Nations General Assembly (Under resolution 55/56) to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the mainstream diamond market.  KPCS was set up to ensure that diamonds as precious minerals are sourced and traded in a responsible manner, reducing financing conflicts and human rights violation. KPCS has laid out requirements for participating member countries to comply including[1]

  1. Enforcement of regulatory standards to control export and import of rough diamonds
  2. Principles of transparent practices to ensure integrity of the diamond supply chains
  3. Selective trading with only KP certified and compliant members
  4. Verification of exports to ensure every traded diamond is accompanied by a conflict free certificate.

Member countries are obliged to enforce these standards. To date 60 participants (representing 86 countries) are signatory members to the Kimberley process and have committed to applying KP principles in the certification of its traded diamonds. The standards require that;

  • Participant countries must enforce stringent legal and regulatory standards to control the import and export of rough diamonds and ensure adherence to KP requirements.
  • Participants commit to transparent practices, which are crucial for the integrity of the diamond supply chain, by exchanging accurate and timely statistical data.
  • Trade is permitted only between certified KP members who comply fully with these international standards, safeguarding the legitimacy of the diamond trade.
  • Every diamond export is closely inspected and must be accompanied by a valid KP certificate, certifying that the diamonds are conflict-free to prevent the entry of illicit stones into the market.
National Level Governance and Implementation of the Kimberly Process; A case of Tanzania

 

In Tanzania the Kimberly Process Office is situated in the Mining Commission, an Institution within the Ministry of Minerals. This office is responsible for the implementation of the KPCS activities, import and export of rough diamond; the office is under the authority of the Executive Secretary. The Mining Commission works closely with the Tanzania Revenue Authority’s Customs Department, Tanzania Intelligence and Security Service and the Police Force for strengthening internal control. The Kimberley Process Office forms a part of the Mineral Audit and Trade Department, which is under the Director for Mineral Audit and Trade who assists the Executive Secretary in administering the KPCS activities. The office issues Annual reports.

Before the issuance of Kimberley Process Certificate, the exporter of rough diamonds must submit a valid Dealer’s license/Mining license, which allows him to export minerals outside Tanzania. The Dealer’s license indicates full address, type of minerals, the premises and signature of Executive Secretary or a person authorized to sign. The exporter fills the application form which indicates license type, license number, weight, value, source of diamonds to confirm that diamonds are conflict free, place of export and declaration of exporter by putting his/her signature, name and qualification to apply for a certificate and pays to the government USD 100 as an application fee for Kimberley Process certificate. Post to the valuation process, the exporter is required to pay royalty (6% of a value) and inspection fee (1% of value) to the Government.

Any person who contravenes any of the provision in Diamond trading regulation commits an offence and liable:  In case of an individual to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine not exceeding US dollar twenty thousand (US$ 20,000) or to both. In case of body corporate, to a fine not exceeding US dollar one hundred thousand (US$ 100,000), or c. Cancelation of his license and permanently be disqualified from prospecting, mining or dealing in diamond and any other minerals.  Any rough diamonds obtained contrary to the provisions of Diamond trading regulations shall be forfeited in addition to other penalties[2].

The International Conference on Great Lakes Region (ICGLR) Mineral Certification Measures

 

The ICGLR Certification mechanism was developed to address the persistent of mineral driven conflicts in the Africa Great Lakes region. It aims to create a conducive environment for cooperation among member states while also ensuring the protection and well-being of the people living in the Africa Great Lakes region.

The ICGLR Certificate confirms a mineral shipment is conflict-free and meets the ICGLR’s ethical sourcing standards, ensuring it’s free from illegal influence and responsibly traced from mine to market. This certification involves a thorough verification process to trace the minerals’ origin and verify they are free from illegal financing, armed group involvement, and human rights abuses. It provides buyers with the assurance that the minerals meet ICGLR requirements for transparency, legality, and responsible sourcing, supporting ethical supply chains in the region[3].

Currently the DRC, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and Burundi are members to the ICGLR’s certification mechanism. Mineral flows are analyzed via an ICGLR Regional Database, using the data on individual shipments collected and transmitted to the ICGLR by each Member States.  The database is verified annually via ICGLR Third Party Audits. The mechanism is viewed as an important regional standard and tool for enhancing collaboration, transparency, and development in Africa’s Great Lakes region, promoting accountability and encouraging businesses to pursue certification for adherence.  
The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Mineral Supply Chain

Requires that company supply chains of all minerals from conflict affected and high-risk areas, must respect human rights and avoid contributing to conflict through their mineral or metal purchasing decisions and practices. Recognizes that trade and investment in natural mineral resources hold great potential for generating income, growth and prosperity, sustaining livelihoods and fostering local development. However, a large share of these resources is located in conflict affected and high-risk areas. In these areas, exploitation of natural mineral resources is significant and may contribute, directly or indirectly, to armed conflict, gross human rights violations and hinder economic and social development[4].

The OECD Due Diligence Guidance is considered as the first example of a collaborative government-backed multi-stakeholder initiative on responsible supply chain management of minerals from conflict-affected areas. Its objective is to help companies respect human rights and avoid contributing to conflict through their mineral sourcing practices[5].

The Guidance is also intended to cultivate transparent mineral supply chains and sustainable corporate engagement in the mineral sector with a view to enabling countries to benefit from their mineral resources and preventing the extraction and trade of minerals from becoming a source of conflict, human rights abuses, and insecurity. With its Supplements on Tin, Tantalum, Tungsten and Gold, the OECD Guidance provides companies with a complete package to source minerals responsibly in order for trade in those minerals to support peace and development and not conflict[6]

Responsible Minerals Initiative

 

The Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) is a voluntary membership body of companies and industry players with a vision to ensure that mineral supply chains contribute positively to social economic development globally. It seeks to promote the common goal of understanding and contributing to mitigating the salient social and environmental impacts of extraction and processing of minerals in supply chains. It leverages partnerships and use of international standards such as the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights or the OECD Due Diligence Guidance as our guideposts[7].

Comprised of more than 500 member companies; the Responsible Minerals Initiative is considered one of the most utilized and respected resources for companies from a range of industries addressing responsible mineral sourcing issues in their supply chains. RMI provides companies with tools and resources to make sourcing decisions that improve regulatory compliance and support responsible sourcing of minerals from conflict-affected and high-risk areas. RMI undertakes due diligence, assurance and reporting templates for cobalt, gold, tin, tungsten, tin, tantalum and other minerals.

The Nexus between Critical Minerals, Conflict and Harm

 

There is a strong connection between the extraction and trade of certain minerals and the exacerbation of armed conflicts and instability in various regions, particularly in developing countries. Globally, critical minerals fueling Green Tech are also fueling conflict[8] Armed groups often exploit the demand for these minerals (like tin, tantalum, tungsten, and gold, collectively known as “conflict minerals”) to fund their operations, including the purchase of weapons[9]. This reliance on minerals to fuel conflict can lead to human rights abuses environmental degradation, and social unrest, hindering sustainable development. 

Critical minerals such as bauxite, manganese cobalt, lithium and uranium have fuelled conflicts in the DRC, Guinea, Niger, Mali, Chad and Central Africa Republic[10] Myanmar has also experienced a post-coup rush for control over its rare earth minerals, while Latin American countries like Chile and Colombia are grappling with how to ensure that their lithium wealth benefits local economies rather than multinational corporations[11].

Critical Minerals and conflict; A case for DRC

 

Multiple reports produced by UN and Civil society show that the ongoing violence in the DRC is linked to mineral extraction, with rebel insurgents motivated by a desire to extract from the region’s vast cobalt and coltan reserves. Since the onset of the infamous second Congo War in 1998, control over the DRC’s vast mineral resources has fuelled conflict between armed groups and militias. These factions fight over mining territories, using profits from the illegal extraction and smuggling of conflict minerals to finance their operations and purchase weapons. The struggle for control over mineral-rich areas has led to prolonged violence, contributing to the deaths of millions and leaving entire regions destabilized[12]. 

In the DRC, according to the UN Group of Experts, the M23 established control over the mineral-rich area and created a new transportation route to Rwanda. Through taxation and smuggling of minerals, the armed group is financially benefiting from DRC’s mineral resources. It’s estimated that the group is receiving approximately $800,000 USD monthly from the production and trade of minerals at Rubaya.

While some mine sites in eastern DRC may not be directly affected by the conflict, early 2025started with violence in Goma (a major mineral export and transit hub), as well as insecurity moving towards South Kivu with recent clashes in in Nyabibwe, a mineral rich area known for 3Ts and gold, located halfway between Goma and Bukavu. As of mid-February, the M23 had occupied Bukavu, another major mineral export and transit hub in the region.

Recent reports also indicate armed groups in Ituri Province are forming alliances with the M23, while new violence in the province has sparked worries of a larger regional conflict. The UN Group of Experts estimated that armed groups based in Ituri Province generated approximately $140 million USD in 2024, dwarfing the illicit revenue generated by 3Ts[13] Other armed militias and groups such as Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) are equally benefiting from the loot.

In light of this reality, the abundance of critical minerals offers a potential opportunity for economic wellbeing but the geopolitics and the dash for their control and extraction has potential of increasing conflicts in Africa[14]  According to Global witness, the extraction and trade of some critical minerals is intensifying new geopolitical tensions and reinforcing long-standing patterns of exploitation[15] including conflicts.

The Trump Ukraine deal revealed a connection of critical minerals to the Russia and Ukraine war and how natural resources in Ukraine have become a key bargaining chip in international diplomacy between the US and Russia. In the same perspective, the US and the Democratic Republic of Congo are close to sign a minerals-for-security deal, highlighting the increase role of critical minerals in geopolitics and conflict.

In fact, the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo reached out to the Donald Trump administration with a Ukrainian-style proposal in February 2025 in response to the rapid advance of the Rwandan-backed M23 rebel group in the east of the country. The U.S. government has responded enthusiastically with a flurry of negotiations aimed at ending a decades-long conflict born out of the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

The political momentum is building towards a potential peace deal between Congo and Rwanda to be accompanied by bilateral minerals deals between both countries and the United States.  At stake are the mineral riches of North and South Kivu provinces, a major but highly problematic source of metals such as tin, tungsten and coltan[16].

According to different sources, this deal once signed could boost Rwanda processing of Congo minerals and provide the US with an assured source of processed critical minerals required to support its industrial technology and security needs.

 Gaps and why a new regime for mineral certification is required

 

The existing major regional and global mineral certification regimes have significant gaps that necessitate that a new regime is developed.

  • Narrowness in focus and scope: Existing certification mechanisms such KP are narrow in scope largely target diamonds and were not designed to cover a broader mining sector. The ICGLR covers the 3Ts and gold. The emergency of a wider list of critical minerals adds a new context which the KP and ICGLR certification mechanisms were not designed for.
  • Voluntary mechanisms; The existing mechanisms are largely voluntary and member states companies encouraged to join and comply with the standards. For instance, the 21st meeting of the CIRGL Regional Committee on the fight against the illegal exploitation of natural resources recommended CIRGL Secretariat to compile a comprehensive report on the status of implementation of the six tools of the regional certification mechanism. This report revealed that the Republic of Rwanda has not yet established the traceability chain for gold. Instead, Rwanda controls gold extraction and trade using conventional methods and does not issue ICGLR certificates for gold exports[17].”
  • Limited in geographical and legal scope: For instance, the OECD Due diligence Guidance is largely applicable to companies from OECD member countries but with limited enforcement mechanisms in non-OECD countries. Yet mining companies from non-OECD Countries such as China are emerging as the leading exploiters of Africa’s critical minerals according to WTO reports[18]. from the DRC. Chinese based companies own or operate 80 percent of the critical mineral production in the DRC, much of which is sent to China for processing for export via the global supply chain[19] Moreover the ICGLR is confined to its member states while the RMI covers only its 500 members.
  •  
  • Illicit smuggling and trading in conflict minerals continue despite the presence of current certification mechanisms. For instance, despite its membership to the Kimberley Process (KP) and ICGLR commitments, Tanzania’s diamond sector is reported as facing entrenched governance challenges: opaque supply chains, smuggling, and minimal community benefits. Tanzania’s diamonds have suffered from environmental concerns, price volatility from synthetics and smuggled diamonds from regional conflicts areas[20].

Moreover, critical minerals including diamonds are smuggled across borders, transacted in established commercial capitals and hubs such as Kigali, Kampala, Nairobi and Dubai. For instance, a Global Witness investigation report indicates that an international commodities trader Traxys bought conflict coltan smuggled from Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to Rwanda[21] The investigation revealed that the multibillion-dollar company headquartered in Luxembourg bought 280 tonnes of coltan from Rwanda in 2024 based on customs documents seen by Global Witness.

Analysis by Global Witness of trade data and testimonies from two coltan smugglers suggested that a big share of the coltan Traxys bought from Rwanda was connected to the ongoing war in the east of DRC. African Panther’s coltan exports soared to unprecedented volumes in 2024, exceeding the combined total of the export volumes recorded over the previous four years. This increase in exports coincided with the escalation of the war in North Kivu and increased smuggling of conflict coltan from Rubaya, further suggesting that an important share of African Panther’s 2024 exports was smuggled from conflict zones in DRC[22].

Despite having limited or no known deposits and operational mines, some countries in East Africa and the Middle East have emerged as leading exporters of critical minerals such as cobalt, lithium and coltan.  Study reports show large volumes of critical minerals transacted via East Africa to foreign markets such as the UAE and China[23].  For instance, in 2025 Kenyan authorities intercepted 10 containers of suspected smuggled copper at the port of Mombasa[24]  These illicitly acquired, smuggled and transacted minerals have found market into the UAE and Western capitals in Switzerland and New York. In 2023 alone, Kenya’s exports of copper to the United Arab Emirates were valued at US$22.27 million. The UAE exports mineral products, including critical minerals, in significant quantities, primarily to Japan, China, and India.

  • Ongoing critical minerals driven conflicts and the rise of new geopolitical conflicts in producer countries: The ongoing mineral driven conflicts have already been documented in the cobalt, coltan mineral rich Eastern DRC and elsewhere but the rush for securing access and control of mineral supply chains by superpowers is reviving geopolitical interests and may result in new geopolitical conflicts.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for instance, since the revision of its mining law in 2018, the country has attracted no responsible Western investors in the mining industry. Meanwhile, China has come to dominate the production of cobalt and copper, primarily mined in the Katanga and Lualaba regions. The recent re-negotiation by the Tshisekedi Administration of the imbalanced minerals-against infrastructure deal signed in 2008 under the Kabila administration between the DRC and China was perceived by China as triggered by the United State of America.

Aware of the security and economic implications of China’s control over the DRC’s critical minerals supply chain, the United States has signaled its return to the DRC mining sector through the recent acquisition of Australian AVZ Minerals’ assets in the Manono Lithium Project by KoBold Metals. In addition, the U.S. is committed to funding the Lobito Corridor—a strategic railway project essential for transporting critical minerals from the Central African Copperbelt to Western markets.

Through its International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the U.S. has pledged a $550 million loan to support the Lobito Corridor. This project is considered vital in countering Chinese influence in the region by providing an alternative route for exporting critical minerals. This plea was reiterated in Luanda/Angola in January 2024 by the former US President, John Biden, during his last visit to Africa as an US President, in presence of both Angola and DR Congo Presidents.

The corridor is viewed as part of the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment, a G7 initiative aimed at competing with China’s growing presence on the continent. While the Lobito project is designed to challenge Chinese dominance, both Western and Chinese firms will be allowed to use the infrastructure it provides. This dual-access approach raises questions about its strategic value, particularly under a US administration led by President Donald Trump, whose priority is   competition with Beijing. The Lobito Corridor railway could be a physical indicator of the resuscitated geopolitical rivalry and convergence of global superpowers on the African continent as a source for critical mineral resources.

Failure to implement due diligence and traceability mechanisms

 

During the OECD conference on responsible minerals supply chain held in May 2024 in Paris, many Congolese civil society organizations raised concern over the increasing failure in the implementation of due diligence standards in the DRC. CSO mentioned that private sector actors have failed to fully implement supply chain due diligence in alignment with international standards, most notably the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Minerals Supply Chains from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Area. IMPACT added that companies are either turning a blind eye, preferring not to ask questions about the source of their purchases, or have been complicit by over relying on industry schemes despite red flags being raised in UN Group of Experts reports.

The concern around ITSCI—the sole traceability and due diligence provider for 3Ts in DRC—has been so great that in 2024 it lost its recognition with the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI), with RMI noting that important gaps remained in the scheme’s fulfilment of recognition terms. Despite this move, the UN Group of Experts has expressed concern that many private sector actors still rely on the scheme to conduct due diligence without carrying out additional independent quality controls required by international standards[25].

Civil Society Call for reforms

 

Because of these gaps civil society organisations have constantly urged for a review and development of a new certification mechanism regime, expanded and aligned to emerging context of transition minerals. For instance, at the start of the 2025 KP plenary in Dubai the Civil Society Coalition pointed out the gaps of the KP in addressing the challenges of diamond mining, smuggling and poverty in the Central African Republic[26].  CSO observed that the KP was narrow in focus, limited to diamonds and the imposed conflict diamond embargos had targeted smugglers without protecting the diamond mining communities.

The KP does not—and likely will not soon—prevent diamonds from being associated with issues outside the narrow conflict diamond definition, including human rights abuses, violence by public and private security forces, forced labour, and environmental degradation. Rigorous due diligence is essential, yet it remains insufficiently addressed.

For instance the KP in Central Africa Republic’s (CAR) experience demonstrated that the sole existence of the certification scheme does not make diamond governance exemplary. Though diamonds share similar governance challenges with other minerals, the Kimberley Process has largely remained isolated from broader dialogues on mineral-related due diligence.

Civil society demanded for the need to bridge the gaps in the KP certification mechanism by inter alia increasing transparency and engagement with mining communities.  CSOs argued that without transparency, the KP will never effectively achieve its mandate of conflict prevention.

Moreover, the existing certification mechanisms are criticized as elitist, disconnected from the community needs and blind to social economic injustices. For example, the KP certification mechanism does not cover the extent to which the mining of the diamond minerals has benefited the communities from where they are sourced.

Investigations by the Kimberly Process Civil Society Coalition of mining operations in Sierra Leone, Lesotho, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, reveals the often-ignored consequences of large-scale diamond mining on local communities in African countries[27].

In Tanzania, despite mining diamonds for more than 100 years, Shyinyanga remains amongst the poorest remains the poorest region in the country[28]. The critical minerals rich Eastern DRC provinces of Kasai Oriental, Kasai Central, North and South Kivu are among the poorest and least developed in the world. 

For diamond resources to truly benefit communities, the documentary identifies greater transparency and independent monitoring as key elements to enhance corporate accountability. Mining companies, industry actors and states all have a role to play to protect community rights and improve both mining and sourcing practices[29].

Further, certification mechanisms do not sufficiently cover or protect citizen against state excesses and inspired violence. Yet the very atrocities committed by rebel groups, which led to the KP’s creation in 2003, are now mirrored by certain governments and their security forces. Top ranking government officials and security forces in the Eastern DRC have been accused of being complacent to illicit mineral trade. The military junta in Myanmar is accused of widespread human rights violations including killings of civilians in critical mineral rich village areas in Kayah state closer to the Thailand border[30].

Conclusion

 

While certification mechanisms such as the Kimberly process were established for a major purpose of controlling blood diamonds over the years, they have this role to an extent but equally shown inherent gaps and shortcomings. Their limitation in scope, involuntary membership nature and poor implementation is a major limitation. They were set up when diamond was among the top most traded commodity and driver of conflicts in countries such as Angola, Liberia and Siera Leone. With the increasing surge in demand for critical minerals such as Nickel, Cobalt, Coltan, Graphite, Lithium, Tin Tungsten and Rare Earth Elements, the new frontiers mineral driven conflicts have expanded and cannot continue to remain on diamonds.  In the current and future context, it will be untenable for critical minerals to remain outside the purview of mineral certification. For the existing certification mechanisms to be relevant and fitted for the changing context and era of energy of transition, substantive reviews and reforms are required.

Recommendations for future certification mechanisms
  1. Expand the KPI and ICGLR certification to cover a broad range of  critical minerals or develop a new commensurate certification measure for critical minerals, with a focus on ethical sourcing, conflict and governance.
  2. Pay attention to the ongoing problems in mining such as the environmental concerns in critical minerals mining operations and their contribution to social and ecological harm to communities and countries from where they are sourced.
  3. Pay close attention to ongoing issues within critical minerals supply chains, including human rights abuses, armed conflicts, the fair distribution of benefits to local communities, and compliance with national labor laws
  4. Review the existing mineral audit  standards, blend constitution of  audit teams with experts, civil society and community representatives to increase transparency and integrity in certification
  5. Require exporting countries to demonstrate significant economic presence of the critical mineral commensurate with export volumes.
  6. Impose export embargoes and critical mineral trading sanctions on countries or companies involved in perpetrating smuggling and export of illicitly acquired and conflict critical minerals.
  7. Expand the scope of existing certification mechanisms such as the Kimberly process to capture community benefits from diamonds and critical minerals.
  8. Demand that membership to regional and global certification and tracking mechanism must be mandatory for all critical minerals producing and exporting countries
  1. Countries that produce critical minerals should diversify their investors and pursue win-win partnerships to prevent their territories from becoming geopolitical battlegrounds for superpowers competing for access to these resources in the era of energy transition
  2. Enhance public database and reconciliation system for tracking mineral flows to better balance production, purchases, and exports at various levels (exporters, mines, mining regions, and Member States). 
  3. To maximize the benefits from critical mineral supply chains, producer countries should prioritize investments that add value to minerals and promote local content. This approach will generate more jobs for millions of unemployed youths, stimulate economic growth, and facilitate technology transfer and reduce susceptibility to conflict

References

Aikael Etal (2021) Understanding poverty dynamics and vulnerability in Tanzania: 2012–2018 available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rode.12829  accessed on 15 May 2025

Martin A, etal (2014), All that Glitters is not Gold: Dubai, Congo and the illicit trade of critical minerals, Partnership Africa Canada, May 2014

Andy Home, After Ukraine deal, US turns its critical minerals gaze to Africa, available at https://www.reuters.com/markets/, accessed on May 22

Global Witness (2025) available at https://globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/new-investigation-suggests-eu-trader-traxys-buys-conflict-minerals-from-drc/ accessed on 15 May 2025

IMPACT, Actors Must Suspend Sourcing Minerals Financing Armed Groups in Democratic Republic of Congo, available at https://impacttransform.org/, accessed on May 23, 1:46pm

ICGLR, Report on the Status of Implementation of the Six Tools of the ICGLR Regional Initiative on Natural Resources in Member States, P14

ISSD (2018) Green Conflict Minerals; The Fuels of conflict in the transition to a low carbon economy;  available at https://www.iisd.org/story/green-conflict-minerals/ accessed on 15 May 2025

Panzi Foundation available via https://panzifoundation.org/conflict-minerals-and-sexual-violence-in-the-drc/# accessed on 15 May 2025

The African Climate Foundation Report; Geopolitics of Critical Minerals in Renewable Supply Chains  available at https://africanclimatefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/800644-ACF-03_Geopolitics-of-critical-minerals-R_WEB.pdf  accessed on 15 May 2025

The Eastleigh Voice (2025); Police launch investigation into suspected copper smuggling at Mombasa port; available at https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/business/112007/police-probe-suspected-copper-smuggling-at-mombasa-port accessed on 15 May 2025

US International Finance Cooperation https://www.dfc.gov/investment-story/strengthening-critical-mineral-supply-chains-countering-chinas-dominance#:~:text=But%20critical%20mineral%20supply%20chains,sent%20to%20China%20for%20processing.

WTO (2024): High demand for energy-related critical minerals creates supply chain pressures; available at

Online sources

[1] https://www.kimberleyprocess.com/about/what-is-kp

[2] The United Republic of Tanzania: Mining Commission; A Report on implementation of the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme for Tanzania Year 2023

[3]ICGLR; available via https://icglrcertification.com/ accessed 13 May 2025

[4]OECD Report (2016) available via https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/oecd-due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-supply-chains-of-minerals-from-conflict-affected-and-high-risk-areas_9789264252479-en.html, accessed on 13 May 2025

[5] OECD (2016), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas: Third Edition, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264252479-en.

[6] ibid

[7] https://www.responsiblemineralsinitiative.org/

[8] https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/critical-minerals-conflict-eu/

[9] European Commission: Trade and Economic Security, Conflict Minerals regulation available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/development-and-sustainability/conflict-minerals-regulation_en#:~:text=In%20politically%20unstable%20areas%2C%20armed,mobile%20phones%2C%20cars%20and%20jewellery. Accessed on 15 May 2025

[10] ISSD (2018) Green Conflict Minerals; The Fuels of conflict in the transition to a low carbon economy;  available at https://www.iisd.org/story/green-conflict-minerals/ accessed on 15 May 2025

[11] ibid

[12] Panzi Foundation available via https://panzifoundation.org/conflict-minerals-and-sexual-violence-in-the-drc/# accessed on 15 May 2025

[13] IMPACT, Actors Must Suspend Sourcing Minerals Financing Armed Groups in Democratic Republic of Congo, available at https://impacttransform.org/, accessed on May 23, 1:46pm

[14] The African Climate Foundation Report; Geopolitics of Critical Minerals in Renewable Supply Chains  available at https://africanclimatefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/800644-ACF-03_Geopolitics-of-critical-minerals-R_WEB.pdf  accessed on 15 May 2025

[15] Global Witness; Critical Minerals Fuel Conflicts available via  https://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/transition-minerals/the-critical-minerals-scramble-how-the-race-for-resources-is-fuelling-conflict-and-inequality/#:~:text=How%20are%20critical%20minerals%20driving,communities%20in%20resource%2Drich%20nations. Accessed on 15 May 2025

[16] Andy Home, After Ukraine deal, US turns its critical minerals gaze to Africa, available at https://www.reuters.com/markets/, accessed on May 22

[17] ICGLR, Report on the Status of Implementation of the Six Tools of the ICGLR Regional Initiative on Natural Resources in Member States, P14

[18] WTO (2024): High demand for energy-related critical minerals creates supply chain pressures; available at https://www.wto.org/english/blogs_e/data_blog_e/blog_dta_10jan24_e.htm#:~:text=Exports,all%20at%206%20per%20cent). Accessed on 15 May 2025

[19] US International Finance Cooperation https://www.dfc.gov/investment-story/strengthening-critical-mineral-supply-chains-countering-chinas-dominance#:~:text=But%20critical%20mineral%20supply%20chains,sent%20to%20China%20for%20processing.

[20] URT:  Ministry of Minerals, Mining Commission; A Report on implementation of the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme for Tanzania Year 2023

[21]Global Witness (2025) available at https://globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/new-investigation-suggests-eu-trader-traxys-buys-conflict-minerals-from-drc/ accessed on 15 May 2025

[22] ibid

[23] Martin A, etal (2014), All that Glitters is not Gold: Dubai, Congo and the illicit trade of critical minerals, Partnership Africa Canada, May 2014

[24] The Eastleigh Voice (2025); Police launch investigation into suspected copper smuggling at Mombasa port; available at https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/business/112007/police-probe-suspected-copper-smuggling-at-mombasa-port accessed on 15 May 2025

[25] IMPACT, Actors Must Suspend Sourcing Minerals Financing Armed Groups in Democratic Republic of Congo, available at https://impacttransform.org/, accessed on May 23, 1:46pm

[26] https://www.kpcivilsociety.org/activity/kimberley-process-lifts-ineffective-embargo-end-of-an-era-for-the-central-african-republic-and-another-clear-signal-that-conflict-diamond-scheme-needs-serious-fixing/

[27] Kimberly Civil Society Coalition (2025); BEYOND SHINING ILLUSIONS: New documentary exposes the unspoken realities of large-scale diamond mining available at https://www.kpcivilsociety.org/press/beyond-shining-illusions-new-documentary-exposes-the-unspoken-realities-of-diamond-mining-in-african-countries/ accessed 15 May 2025

[28] Aikael Etal (2021) Understanding poverty dynamics and vulnerability in Tanzania: 2012–2018 available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rode.12829  accessed on 15 May 2025

[29] ibid

[30] https://www.dw.com/en/myanmar-land-mine-use-amounts-to-war-crimes-amnesty-report/a-62533770

Assessing Implications of Trumps Tariffs on Intra East Africa’s Regional and International Trade

By Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Effective 5th April 2025 (with a pause of 90 days) the US President Donald Trump slapped a global tariff of 10% on all exports to the US. The US tariffs has caused a lot of turbulence and uncertainty about the future of the WTO rules based global trade as we knew it. The future of EAC -US trade is unknown and during this period loses will be counted particularly in the agriculture, textiles, apparel and handcrafts sector. However, in the midst of turbulence, the EAC has an opportunity of re-inventing its intra-regional and international trade, and perhaps emerging stronger.  This policy brief analyses the implications of the US tariffs on EAC intra-regional trade and what options the member states can take.

Background on EAC -US Trade Relations and Trade Flows

The East African Community (EAC) and Sub-Saharan Africa generally have been major trading partners with the United States for decades and so far, the fastest growing markets in the world according to the International Monetary Fund.  The US has signed multiple trade agreements allowing smooth trade flows across the two regions, with the US enjoying an overwhelming trade surplus for decades. In 2008 the U.S. signed Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFA) with the EAC regional economic block in 2008.

The purpose of the TIFA was to strengthen the United States-EAC trade and investment relationship, expand and diversify bilateral trade, and improve the climate for business between U.S. and East African firms. Earlier in 2000 the US had passed the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade preference program that allowed selected goods from EAC duty free market entrance into the United States. AGOA had helped expand and diversify African exports to the United States, while at the same time fostering an improved business environment in many African countries through the application of eligibility requirements.  In 2015, the U.S. Congress extended AGOA through 2025. 

According to the Office of US Trade Representative data the U.S. goods exports to East African Community in 2022 were $1.1 billion, up 2.0 percent ($22 million) from 2021 and up 15 percent from 2012. U.S. goods imports from East African Community totaled $1.3 billion in 2022, up 40.4 percent ($367 million) from 2021, and up 121 percent from 2012. The U.S. trade balance with East African Community shifted from a goods trade surplus of $211 million in 2021 to a goods trade deficit of $135 million in 2022[1].Although the US suffered a goods trade deficit in 2022, it has continued to enjoy trade surpluses with individual EAC member Countries as reported by the US trade Administration.

Table of US-EAC Trade flows and Surplus for 2023-2024

Country

Total Goods Trade with US 2024 (USD)

US Exports

(2024)

US Imports

(2024)

Surplus (2024)

% Increase in Surplus compared to 2023

Kenya

1.5Bln

782.5Mln

737.3Mln

45.2Mln

110 (454.6Mln)

Tanzania

778.1Mln

573.4Mln

204.7Mln

368.7Mln

45.8 (115.8Mln)

Uganda

238.9 Mln

106.3 Mln

132.6 Mln

26.3Mln

574.3 ($31.9Mln)

Rwanda

75.0Mln

44.8Mln

30.2Mln

14.5Mln

4,060 (($14.2Mln)

Democratic Republic of Congo

576.4Mln

253.3Mln

323.1Mln

69.8M

20.9 ($18.4 Mln)

Burundi

$10.4Mln

$6.6Mln

$3.7Mln

$2.9Mln

224.3 (5.2Mln)

South Sudan

$60.1Mln

$59.3 Mln

$0.8Mln

$58.5 Mln

16.0(8.1Mln)

Somalia

$51.6Mln

$49.1 Mln

$2.5 Mln

$46.6Mln

0

Source: Office of US Trade Representative data analyzed and presented by GEPC researcher

Over the years, through its trade diplomacy, the US had cemented long lasting relations paving way for other strategic economic, political and security relations, with the EAC member states including defense. With the new tariff wall, if not changed, this long-term relationship could be bound for a new trajectory.

Knock-on Effects of Tariffs

Tariffs have knock offs whose effects can trickle down the goods and services value chain in many ways, affecting both producers, exporters and consumers down the trade supply chain.

A tariff is a duty imposed by a national government, customs territory, or supranational union on imports of goods. Besides being a source of revenue, import duties can also be a form of regulation of foreign trade and policy that burden foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry[1]. At their core, tariffs are simple: they raise the domestic price of imported goods. But their effects ripple through the economy in complex ways – altering prices, wages, exchange rates and trade patterns.

Simply put, a tariff is a tax on imported products. It creates a difference between the world price and the domestic price of a product. Tariffs raise the price of imported goods relative to domestic goods (good produced at home).  For example, if a US Tarif of 10% is applied on world price of coffee of USD200, the domestic price of coffee in the US market becomes USD 220 per kilogram. The government collects the difference of USD20 dollar as tariff revenue to finance other public expenditures.

Tariffs can also affect the world price of a product, particularly when they are imposed by a large economy. The logic is that higher domestic prices reduce domestic demand, which in turn lowers world demand, and thus world prices. In our example, the world price might fall to $150 after the tariff is imposed, resulting in a domestic price of $165. In this case, part of the tariff is effectively paid by foreign producers[2].

This cost-shifting creates incentives for large economies to unilaterally impose tariffs. However, this so-called optimal tariff argument overlooks the possibility of retaliation. If country A imposes tariffs on country B, country B has an incentive to respond in kind. The end result is a trade war that leaves both sides worse off[3].

With the current US tariffs, the prices of goods entering into the US market will increase by 10%. For example, the price of coffee will increase by 10% making it more expensive for Americans to afford. Similarly, the costs for other agricultural products, textiles and handcrafts will suffer the same fate. The resultant effect of this will be a low demand for these goods in the US markets affecting EAC farmers and exporters. We can further illustrate this with a simple of the effects of the tariffs on handicrafts from the EAC. 

Because of increased tariffs and a decline in demand for the Makonde carvings, the exporter of Makonde Carvings and paintings will buy less. The Makonde carver and painter in Mtwara and Mwenge will lose business and sell less. The transporter of Makonde carvings will have little business and therefore send a few trucks to collect and deliver the carvings to Dar es Salaam. The exporter will send a few containers and therefore the port handlers and clearing firms will have no business. The Makonde artist may completely close and ultimately the transporter and port handler may lay off staff. A similar experience can be the same for the Coffee producer in Uganda and Kenya, whose knock off effect of the US tariffs will trickle down the supply chain in a similar manner.

Tariffs in the Context of WTO and GATT rules

In the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules-based system, when countries agree to open their markets for goods or services, they “bind” their commitments. A country can change its bindings, but only after negotiating with its trading partners, which could mean compensating them for loss of trade[1].

Under the WTO (GATTs, GAT and TRIPs agreements) international trade and commerce is run based on a rule-based system and principles. These include;

  1. Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN), which requires treating other people equally. Under the WTO agreements, countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners. Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members[2]
  2. National Treatment of foreigners and locals equally where by imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. This also applies to services, trademarks, copyrights and patents. (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS) although there can be some variations in applications depending on an existing arrangement such as a Regional Economic block or once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market can be a subject to customs duty or any other applicable duties.
  3. National treatment only applies once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market. Therefore, charging customs duty on an import is not a violation of national treatment even if locally-produced products are not charged an equivalent tax.
  4. Freer trade gradually through negotiations and reducing of trade barriers such customs duties (tariffs), import bans or quotas, selective restriction on quantities, bureaucracy and exchange rate policies.
  5. Predictability of trade through binding commitments and transparency. This encourages investment, job creation and consumers can enjoy the benefits of competition
  6. Promotion of fair competition, with an allowance of a limited. number of tariffs for limited protection, allowing thriving of domestic industry and protection against entry of harmful products.
  7. Generally, encouraging development and economic reforms aimed at increasing global trade flows and particularly allowing less developed countries to equally enjoy benefits of the global trade system.
    Tariffs as Tools for Trade Policy and Geopolitical Statecraft

    Tariffs are not universally banned from trade policy. Tariffs can be a useful tool for protecting domestic industries, generating revenue, and supporting economic development, especially in developing countries. They can equally be used as a foreign policy instrument to advance economic diplomatic ties between nations.

    According to the WTO, tariffs must not be used as weapon for trade distortion, carry the risk of increased costs for businesses and consumers, potentially stifling economic growth and competitiveness. However, the recent US Trump measures reorganize the rules on International Trade. Tariffs are now used as a political tool for advancing geopolitical and national security interests, including cajoling other trading partners and WTO member states into curving in to pressure aimed at achieving domestic political gains.

    There are contending views (including from the US Council on Foreign Relations) that according to the WTO rules, the US Trump tariffs are illegal, arbitrary, based on a wrong formular, not reciprocal, distortionary[1] and must be fought either at the WTO or through reciprocal measures taken by affected Countries. Poor application of tariffs can spark a contagion effect of tariffs wars across nations.

    Implications on EAC Trade and economic growth
    1. Rise in prices of EAC Export products in the US market by a commensurate percentage in response to the tariff charges unless the EAC exporters absorb or the US government cushions the consumers in someways
    2. Decline in export volumes EAC goods to the US by a commensurate percentage decline, depending on the tariff elasticity of the good affected by the US imposed tariffs
    3. Increase in import driven inflationary pressures in the EAC causing on the already current inflationary pressures in the EAC region
    4. Potential slow down in the regional economic growth in line with the IMF projected global economic slowdown of 2.8% in 2025 due to disruptions in global trade
    5. Shortage in supply of US dollars due to declining inflow from trade with the US. This could exert some depreciation of domestic currencies, as the dollar demand to purchase imports increases.
    6. Incentivize the rise in the use of Tariffs and blockades by countries in the region as tools for trade policy and coercion to achieve specific strategic interests, as countries mimic US behavior
    EAC Response options for Trade Creation and Diversion to new markets

    To date the EAC as a regional block has remained silent while its respective member states have decided to individually not to retaliate.  Uganda’s Ministry of Finance, clearly stated that it had taken a decision not to retaliate[2].  Similar statements were made by Kenya’s Ministry of Trade[3].

    Uganda’s trade volumes with the US were small and the US was a major beneficiary of this trade relationship, enjoying a goods trade surplus, while its nationals enjoyed cheap high quality agricultural exports such as coffee, tea, fruits and handcrafts from the EAC.

    The AGOA partnership agreement was bound to expire at the end of 2025 and the US and EAC were already on the road towards negotiating new trade arrangements, if AGOA was not extended. Moreover, some Countries such as Uganda, Burundi, South Sudan and Somalia were not eligible for AGOA in 2024 due to among others sanctions imposed by the US for various reasons (including conflicts, human and political rights violations) and were already searching for markets elsewhere.

    The EAC as a regional block was pushing for increased intra-regional trade. The East African Business Council, an apex body of businesses and companies, has always been concerned with low volumes of intra EAC trade as compared to other economic regions. 

    This has been widely linked to existence of tariff and non-tariff barriers, including stringent rules of origin, Stay of Applications which allows member states to charge or exempt different tariffs on some specific goods different from the Common External Tariff, differences in taxes such VAT, Income Taxes and Exercise duties. It was further concerned with the bilateral negotiations of trade deals with third parties. The East African Business Council (EABC) advocated and has been pushing the EAC to continue negotiating the EAC-EU Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) and the EAC-UK EPA as a region to avoid creating mistrust and distortion of the EAC Common External Tariff (CET)[4]

    The new US tariffs therefore offer the EAC and Sub-Saharan Africa region with a window of an opportunity to disconnect itself from the US markets by deepening intra-regional trade, diversifying and diverting its trade to other regions such as Africa via Africa Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), the EU, the Middle East and China.

    AFCTA offers flexible rules and unfettered free access to a market population of about 1.3 billion people and a combined GDP of approximately US$ 3.4 trillion[5]. The AfCFTA aims to eliminate trade barriers and boost intra-Africa trade. In particular, it is to advance trade in value-added production across all service sectors of the African Economy[6]. There are a lot of opportunities in the AfCFTA for the Private sector in the EAC as it offers a larger and diversified market for goods and services. According to President Museveni Uganda will now focus on African markets[7]

    The EU has been a major trading partner and EU trade in goods (imports and exports) with the EAC has risen steadily comparatively to 2007 volumes[8]  In 2023 the EU trade in goods and services with the EAC region amounted to EUR106Bln. The EU trade in services amounted to EUR 5.9bln. If compared to 2022 the EU trade in goods with the EAC region reached EUR 5.7bln while imports from the EAC were EUR4.9bln. Exports in services were valued at EUR3.0Bln compared to EUR2.9 bln imported from the EAC[9]. The major exports to the EU from the East African Community are mainly coffee, cut flowers, tea, tobacco, fish and vegetables. Imports from the EU into the region are dominated by machinery and mechanical appliances, equipment and parts, vehicles and pharmaceutical products[10].  Kenya and Tanzania were the leading EU trade partners.

    China is already a major trading partner with the EAC and had surpassed the EU and the US. In 2023, China was the largest source of imports for the East African Community (EAC), with imports valued at $11 billion. The EAC’s exports to China in the same year were valued at $15.8 billion. China is closely followed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at US$6.4 billion in 2023[11].

    From the statistics, the EAC already enjoys a trade surplus with China. Although there are concerns over unethical business conducts, including the risk of stifling industrial growth by flooding the EAC with cheap substandard goods, China remains a huge market of about 1billion people, it is the second largest economy in the world and the largest one in RCEP with a GDP of 16,325 billion USD in 2022 (World Bank, 2023).  Chinese demand for EAC products is enormous and projected to grow.

    The EAC also has an opportunity of benefiting from arbitrage practices, whereby producers from highly US tariffed countries set up business to produce, buy, sell or reroute their products via the EAC to take advantage of the tax and price differences. In this case highly taxed countries such as China and Lesotho would be interested in setting up business in EAC.  Kenya has already made a move with President Ruto’s visit to Beijing to attract Chinese businesses to set business in Nairobi.

    Recommendations

    For this to happen, the EAC and its member states will have to

    1. Diversify, Divert and Create trade. This happens when new or existing regional economic grouping (Free Trade Areas or Customs Unions) leads to creation of new trade that never existed before or leads to shifts in trade flows from efficient nonmember exporters to non-efficient member exporters among others due to preferential tariffs charged amongst member states.
    2. Invest in processing and industrial production of agricultural products and raw materials into finished products that can be sold or consumed locally and in the new markets
    3. Address existing tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade such as VAT, Excise duties, income taxes, bureaucracy and infrastructure which have been an obstacle to intra-regional trade.
    4. Revive old economic partnerships with the EU and explore new partnerships with the EU, South America, Middle East and China
    5. Establish linkages between the farmers and manufacturer so as to create value and sustainable supply chains of quality products for the market
    6. Address political differences, instability and conflicts affecting cordial economic cooperation and free flow of goods across EAC and African borders.

     References 

    European Commission: Trade and Security available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/east-african-community-eac_en

    Ralph Ossa; Views of the Chief Economist, World Trade Organisation, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/blogs_e/ce_ralph_ossa_e/blog_ro_11apr25_e.htm accessed 14 April 2025

    The New Times (May 02, 2025) available at https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/21152/news/africa/eabcs-adrian-raphael-njau-advocates-for-stronger-eac-market

    WTO; Principles of the Trading system available at: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm#:~:text=In%20the%20WTO%2C%20when%20countries,the%20case%20in%20developing%20countries.

    [1] https://www.cfr.org/blog/five-things-know-about-trumps-tariffs

    [2] Mr Ramadhan Ggobi , Permanent Secretary for Treasury made these remarks while addressing a press conference at the Ministry of Finance

    [3] Mr Lee Kinyanjui, PS for Trade, Kenya in an Interview with  Citizen TV available on Citizen digital via https://www.citizen.digital/news/what-it-means-for-kenya-after-us-imposes-10-export-tariff-trade-cs-kinyanjui-n360379

    [4] https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/21152/news/africa/eabcs-adrian-raphael-njau-advocates-for-stronger-eac-market

    [5] https://au-afcfta.org/about/

    [6] ibid

    [7] https://eastleighvoice.co.ke/african%20markets/140091/museveni-says-uganda-to-focus-on-african-markets-amid-us-tariff-hike

    [8] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2024/766228/EPRS_BRI(2024)766228_EN.pdf

    [9] ibid

    [10] https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/east-african-community-eac_en

    [11] https://www.eac.int/trade/79-sector/trade#:~:text=China%20is%20the%20dominant%20source,US%246.4%20billion%20in%2020

How Tanzania Government plans to leap jump mining to the future

 

Tanzania’s mining sector has been a mix of sweet and sour, with of economic progress and injustices at the same time. In an earlier brief that we published, we traced, from an investors perspective, Tanzania’s mining history, the key reforms and pitfalls that have befallen this remarkable sector making it the most loved and hated at the same time, with a conclusion, that despite the progress made, government needs to do more to restore its past glory. In this article the government of Tanzania responds to stakeholders, reassuring confidence that the mining sector is destined for the better.

By Tanzania Ministry of Minerals

The mining sector is one of the key sectors in Tanzania, contributing significantly to the country’s GDP, employment, and social development. The minerals available in Tanzania include Metal Minerals such as Gold, Copper, Iron, Silver, Nickel; Industrial Minerals such as Graphite, Gypsum.

Other Minerals include Energy Minerals such as Coal, Uranium; Gemstones such as Diamond, Ruby, Emerald, and the unique Tanzanite found only in Tanzania; Rare Earth Elements such as Neodymium, Lanthanum, Cerium; and Construction Minerals such as gravel, sand, marble, and limestone.

Therefore, the government has been implementing various strategies to ensure these abundantly available resources benefit the nation and its citizens as a whole.

We will continue to improve our legislation and business environment to make sure that the available mineral resource trajnhmki0nsform Tanzania to a developed country while proactively minimizing constraints and challenges that might affect the investment- President Samia Suluhu Hassan while speaking at the Ming Conference 2024

Contribution of the Mining Sector to GDP

According to the 2023/2024 financial year report released by the Ministry of Minerals, the mining sector contributed approximately 9.1% of Tanzania’s GDP by 2022. In the 2023/2024 financial year, the mining sector’s contribution reached TZS 6.4 trillion, showing rapid growth due to the government’s efforts to enhance revenue collection and improve the investment environment.

Employment in the Mining Sector

Employment is one of the crucial areas where the mining sector has brought significant changes. By March 2024, the mining sector had created approximately 19,356 jobs, with 97% of these jobs going to Tanzanians. This equates to 18,853 jobs for Tanzanians and 505 jobs for foreigners. The government has established laws and regulations prioritizing Tanzanians in job opportunities arising from mining activities to ensure citizens gain employment and income.

Investment and Mining Economy

Investment in the mining sector has continued to grow rapidly, with the government encouraging both local and foreign companies to invest in exploration, mining, and value addition. In 2023, Tanzanian companies sold goods and services worth USD 1.48 billion (over TZS 3.75 trillion) to mines, accounting for 90% of all sales made to mines. This demonstrates the importance of the private sector in boosting the mining sector and the economy overall.

The United States International Trade Administration estimates that the sector will reach $6.6 billion in value in Tanzania by 2027[1].   In addition to mining the minerals, this emerging sector provides opportunities to capture more value from critical minerals before exporting, by establishing mineral processing centres within the country

Government Strategies

Given the sector’s importance, the Tanzanian government has implemented various strategies to enhance the mining sector to increase productivity and growth through Vision 2030: Minerals are Life and Wealth. The government plans to conduct comprehensive geoscientific surveys (High-Resolution Airborne Geophysical Survey) for at least 50% of the country, up from the current 16%, by 2030. This survey aims to identify new mineral-rich areas and encourage further investment. Other strategies include:

  1.  Improving Infrastructure: The government has invested in improving road and electricity infrastructure in mining areas to facilitate the provision of essential services and attract investment.
     
    2.    Training Small-Scale Miners: The government, in collaboration with educational and training institutions, has initiated training programs for small-scale miners to enable them to use better technology and improve production.

  2.  Promoting Value Addition: The government encourages companies to establish value addition industries for minerals within the country rather than exporting raw minerals. This includes the production of refined gemstones and other valuable products.
  3.  Technology Support for Small-Scale Mining: Through the State Mining Corporation (STAMICO), the government has acquired five rig machines to assist small-scale miners, saving them time and production costs. Another 10 machines are expected to arrive soon, bringing the total to 15.

  4.  Addressing Capital Challenges for Small-Scale Miners: Through the Ministry of Minerals and STAMICO, the government has facilitated access to loans and capital for small-scale miners in collaboration with financial institutions. Banks like CRDB, KCB, and NMB have started offering low-interest loans to these miners, enabling them to purchase modern equipment and conduct their activities more efficiently. From July 2023 to March 2024, TZS 187 billion was loaned to small-scale miners.

Success Stories

  1.  Buckreef Gold Mine: Located in Geita region and owned jointly by STAMICO and TANZAM2000, this mine produced 13,577.43 ounces of gold from July 2023 to March 2024, contributing USD 1,943,180.94 in royalties, inspection fees, and taxes.
  2.  Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Projects: Various mining companies in the country have invested TZS 17,084,055,359.58 in community development projects around their mining sites, including the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, and water infrastructure.

Future of the Mining Sector

Courtesy Photo: Clean Nickel

The future of the mining sector in Tanzania looks promising due to the strategies set by the government in collaboration with stakeholders and ongoing investments. Key areas showing great potential include Strategic and Critical Minerals such as lithium, nickel, graphite, and cobalt, essential for producing electric vehicle batteries and other modern technology devices.

Conclusion

Overall, the mining sector in Tanzania has significantly contributed to economic and social development. The achievements of recent years highlight the sector’s considerable potential in increasing the national GDP, providing employment, and improving citizens’ livelihoods. However, the government, through the Ministry of Minerals, continues to establish sustainable strategies and foster partnerships with the private sector and other stakeholders. These strategies will enable Tanzania to continue reaping more benefits from its mineral resources and ensure sustainable development for future generations.

[1] https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/tanzania-rare-earth-and-critical-minerals#:~:text=It%20is%20estimated%20that%20the,processing%20centers%20within%20the%20country.

Assessing the Impact of the EU’s Carbon Border Tax Adjustment Mechanism on Tanzania’s LNG plans and industrial exports

 The European Union’s (EU) proposed Carbon Border Tax Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) aims to mitigate carbon leakage by imposing a carbon tax on imports of certain commodities that are not taxed internally within the exporter’s country at a comparable level. This policy brief evaluates the potential impact of the CBAM on Tanzania’s promising liquefied natural gas (LNG) project and fossil powered industrial exports. It offers strategic recommendations for mitigating adverse effects and enhancing Tanzania’s export competitiveness.

Author: Dr Lulu O’lang, Researcher and consultant, Governance and Economic Policy Center

Background:

Effective January 2026 the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM) will come into full force. As it stands, this carbon adjustment mechanism, which seeks to reduce the incentives for firms to outsource their carbon emissions and promote a more generalised low-carbon transition, might disproportionately impact some non-EU economies. Fossil based goods from a non-EU country will be required to pay a carbon fee before entering the EU. Because many of the potentially impacted economies have a low capacity to adapt their productive structure to shift to less-emitting industries or to adopt low-emission cutting-edge technologies(Magacho et al., 2024).

The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is the EU’s landmark tool to prevent carbon leakage and support the EU’s increased climate ambitions. It works by putting a price on carbon emitted during the production of carbon-intensive goods entering the EU to incentivise cleaner industrial production in non-EU countries.  Carbon leakage refers to the process of shifted production and/or emissions to other jurisdictions with less stringent emission constraints. It is one of the key obstacles for the EU to reach its climate commitments. The CBAM was designed to specifically address this risk.

Carbon leakage can occur when a domestic carbon price negatively impacts the competitiveness of an entity operating in this domestic context.

This increased cost might result in the entity shifting its production to another country with a lower carbon price to reduce production costs. For example, a steel producer might consider relocating its production outside of the EU to avoid paying for the carbon it emits. Another possible instance of carbon leakage occurs when non-domestic producers that are not subject to the price of carbon enjoy significant competitive advantages compared to domestic producers, resulting in a shift of production abroad[1]. 

The CBAM is also intended to promote more environmentally friendly production methods in third countries. However, the implementation of the CBAM will have far-reaching implications for countries worldwide. Policymakers on both sides of this initiative must carefully consider a multitude of factors, including its impact on EU trade, its potential effects on the well-being of domestic populations, the influence it might have on public opinion, and broader economic relations with the EU. Some early studies indicate that middle and lower-income countries will be more impacted by CBAM. Hence, these countries may need more action from the EU(Sabyrbekov & Overland, 2024).

How it will work: Illustration below courtesy of  Ulla Wenderoth; Let me ship:https://www.letmeship.com/en/the-eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism/

Goods covered

The CBAM will initially only be applied to goods with a high potential for carbon leakage: Aluminum, iron, steel, fertiliser, electricity, hydrogen and cement. The CBAM takes into account both greenhouse gas emissions that occur directly in the production of products and indirect emissions that arise from the manufacture of intermediate products or the electricity required for production.3 Both certain intermediate products and some downstream products such as liquefied natural gas, petrol, heating oil, synthetic rubber, plastics, lubricants, antifreeze, fertilisers and pesticides are affected. It is expected that all products that are also subject to intra-European emissions trading will be added in the coming years[1]. From 1 January 2026, only authorised CBAM declarants will be able to import the corresponding goods. 

General Effects of CBAMs

The effects of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism:2

  • The import of these goods becomes more expensive due to the pricing of CO2 costs.
  • Potential additional revenues from CO2 pricing of imports are to be invested in climate protection.
  • Incentive for other countries to introduce CO2 pricing so that they can continue to trade freely with the EU.

Tanzania is on the verge of leveraging its significant natural gas reserves through an LNG project expected to substantially boost exports, particularly to the world market. The LNG is not being directly targeted in the first phase of CBAM. The EU’s CBAM in the first phase targets iron & steel and aluminum, in the next phase, it is cement, fertilisers, electricity, and hydrogen.  

The potential challenge to Tanzania’s LNG is primarily through the EU’s influence on global trade norms and expectations regarding carbon emissions. The broader implications for energy exports and the evolving scope of CBAM necessitate proactive measures from Tanzania. Tanzania’s engagement in carbon trading, as formalised by the Environmental Management (Control and Management of Carbon Trading) Regulations, 2022, signals a commitment to carbon reduction and trading practices.

Potential Impact on LNG plans

Competitiveness: The main issue that most developing countries are concerned about CBAM is the competitiveness of their products (Magacho et al., 2024; Perdana et al., 2024). Despite the initial phase of CBAM not directly affecting LNG, the trend towards global carbon pricing mechanisms may influence the competitiveness of Tanzania’s LNG. The naturally low CO2 content of Tanzanian gas, however, positions it favourably against competitors, potentially offering a competitive edge in a carbon-sensitive market.

Market Access: Tanzania’s LNG market is predominantly Asian countries, data shows that the export of Intermediate goods, food and vegetables dominates the export products to the EU. There is no clear plan for exporting LNG to the EU however should the plan include it in its expansion plan, the CBAM could set precedents affecting market access for energy exports by encouraging stricter carbon intensity benchmarks in the EU. Tanzania’s current carbon trading framework underlines its readiness to engage in carbon reduction initiatives, which could facilitate smoother market access. However, the means to determine the carbon content/ carbon accounting system of traded commodities is crucial  for export goods is still lacking.

Investment Climate: The uncertain trajectory of global carbon pricing policies, including the CBAM, may impact investment decisions related to the LNG project. If highlighted and leveraged, the project’s inherently low CO2 footprint could attract investment by showcasing its commitment to sustainable energy production.

Effects on Tanzania’s Industrial Export products:

CBAM will likely have impacts on industrial export products fired by fossil-based power sources such as Natural gas.

Although, natural gas is still considered a cleaner fossil, the debate is still out there whether it should be excluded from the list of carbon emitters. Depending on how this debate is concluded in the EU, Tanzania’s natural gas power fired industrial product could likely fall into this category and thereby jeopardizing Tanzania’s domestic LNG market and national gas to power plans.

Policy Recommendations

Strategic Engagement: Tanzania should pursue active dialogue with EU policymakers to understand evolving CBAM regulations and advocate for fair treatment of low-carbon intensity projects like Tanzania’s LNG.

Enhanced Carbon Mitigation: Leveraging its low CO2 emitting LNG, Tanzania should continue to invest in renewable energy integration and carbon capture technologies to further decrease the carbon footprint of its LNG exports.

Market Diversification: Given the LNG market’s tilt towards Asia, Tanzania should bolster efforts to diversify its export destinations, thereby reducing dependency on any single market and mitigating risks associated with CBAM. However, it is possible that in the near future CBAM would incentive Asian EU partners to adopt a carbon price mechanism because the amount charged as part of the CBAM deduces the current carbon price applied in the country of origin and these countries may impose tax on their imports to cover for the carbon tax when producing goods for export to EU.

Policy Development: There is no one-size-fits-all approach to designing and implementing CBAM to tackle competitiveness and carbon leakage; policy design and characteristics of the economy matter(Zhong & Pei, 2024).Tanzania should continue to develop and refine its carbon policy and trading regulations to align with international standards and practices, thereby enhancing the attractiveness of its export products including LNG in a carbon-conscious global market. This includes technical support for carbon accounting and regulatory compliance.

Conclusion:

While the CBAM presents challenges, it also offers Tanzania an opportunity to position its LNG project as a leader in low-carbon energy production. By engaging proactively with international partners, investing in carbon mitigation, and diversifying markets, Tanzania can enhance the resilience and competitiveness of its LNG exports in the face of evolving global carbon pricing mechanisms.

References

Magacho, G., Espagne, E., & Godin, A. (2024). Impacts of the CBAM on EU trade partners: Consequences for developing countries. Climate Policy, 24(2), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2200758

Perdana, S., Vielle, M., & Oliveira, T. D. (2024). The EU carbon border adjustment mechanism: Implications on Brazilian energy intensive industries. Climate Policy, 24(2), 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2277405

Sabyrbekov, R., & Overland, I. (2024). Small and large friends of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism: Which non-EU countries are likely to support it? Energy Strategy Reviews, 51, 101303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101303

Zhong, J., & Pei, J. (2024). Carbon border adjustment mechanism: A systematic literature review of the latest developments. Climate Policy, 24(2), 228–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2023.2190074

[1] Let Me Ship, https://www.letmeship.com/en/the-eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism/

[1] https://tracker.carbongap.org/policy/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism/

For more about this work and valuable resources visit our website via: www.gepc.or.tz

How AI can be leveraged to power Africa’s sustainable energy systems

The evolution of energy production and consumption has undergone significant transformations over the decades, particularly in the context of Africa, where energy poverty remains a formidable challenge. This policy brief discusses how AI can be leveraged to  Africa’s power future.

By Evans Rubara*, Guest Expert, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Featured image: Africa Energy portal, AfdB

Historically, the continent has grappled with inadequate infrastructure, unreliable power supply, and reliance on traditional biomass, hindering socio-economic development. As the global narrative shifts towards sustainability, the advent of power-to-energy technologies offers a promising solution. These innovative systems can convert surplus renewable energy into storable forms, such as hydrogen, potentially revolutionizing energy access in Africa. This article explores the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in powering energy and the unique socio-economic landscape of the continent, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

Understanding Energy Poverty in Africa

Energy poverty is defined as the lack of access to reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy services, which severely impacts individuals’ quality of life and economic opportunities. Energy poverty is a critical issue that affects millions across the African continent. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2021), about 600 million people in Africa lack access to electricity, which accounts for nearly 46% of the population. This problem is especially severe in rural areas, where the lack of electricity can reach up to 80%. Even in regions with electrical infrastructure, power outages are common, forcing many families to rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating. This reliance poses significant health risks and contributes to environmental degradation.

The consequences of energy poverty extend beyond mere inconvenience; they stifle economic growth, limit educational opportunities, and exacerbate health issues.

Without reliable power, businesses struggle to thrive, and families often resort to expensive and unhealthy alternatives. The World Bank (2020) estimates that the lack of access to electricity costs African countries around $5 billion annually in lost productivity. Therefore, addressing energy poverty is not only a moral imperative but also essential for broader socio-economic development across the continent.

The Role of Power-to-Energy Systems

Power-to-energy systems can play a crucial role in alleviating energy poverty in Africa. These technologies convert excess electricity into storable and transportable forms of energy, helping to manage the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources like solar and wind. In regions where energy production fluctuates seasonally, power-to-energy systems can provide a buffer, ensuring a more consistent energy supply.

For example, during sunny days, solar panels can generate surplus electricity that can be converted into hydrogen through a process known as electrolysis. This hydrogen can then be stored and used later for electricity generation or as fuel for transportation. Such flexibility allows energy supply to align more closely with demand, which is vital in areas where consumption patterns can be unpredictable.

The African Continental AI Strategy

 Artificial intelligence (AI) is technology that allows machines to simulate human intelligence and cognitive capabilities. AI can be used to help make decisions, solve problems and perform tasks that are normally accomplished by humans[1].

The African Continental AI Strategy is an initiative by the African Union aimed at leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) for socio-economic development across the continent. This strategy recognizes the transformative potential of AI (African Union, 2019) and seeks to address critical challenges in sectors such as healthcare, agriculture, education, and energy. By encouraging collaboration among member states and investing in AI research and infrastructure, the strategy aims to position Africa as a competitive player in the global AI landscape.

One of the key implications of this strategy is its potential to enhance the integration of power-to-energy systems. With nearly 600 million people affected by energy poverty, the incorporation of AI into energy systems can optimize the generation, distribution, and consumption of energy.

Power-to-energy technologies, which convert surplus renewable energy into storable forms like hydrogen, can benefit from AI-driven analytics that manage energy flow, predict demand, and improve efficiency.

Additionally, the strategy emphasizes the importance of building local capacities and skills. Investing in education and training will enable African nations to develop a workforce proficient in AI applications specific to the energy sector, ensuring that innovations are tailored to local contexts. The strategy also promotes ethical AI use, which aligns with the need for transparent and responsible implementation of technologies that impact communities and the environment.

Advantages of Power-to-Energy Systems in Africa

Power-to-energy systems offer several advantages for Africa. They can increase energy security by diversifying energy sources and enabling local fuel production, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. This diversification is particularly important for many African countries that are vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy prices.

These systems also create jobs. Establishing power-to-energy facilities can generate employment in construction, operation, and maintenance, thereby supporting local economies and fostering skills development. Furthermore, power-to-energy technologies facilitate the integration of renewable energy into the grid, which is essential for transitioning to a low-carbon economy. By maximizing the use of local renewable resources, countries can enhance their energy independence.

Moreover, these systems have environmental benefits. By decreasing reliance on fossil fuels and promoting cleaner energy sources, power-to-energy systems can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contribute to global climate goals, and improve local air quality.

Challenges and Considerations

Despite their potential, adopting power-to-energy systems in Africa is not without challenges. One major barrier is the initial investment required for these technologies. Many African nations operate with limited budgets, and the high upfront costs of establishing power-to-energy facilities can deter investment. Additionally, the absence of existing infrastructure for energy storage and distribution presents significant logistical hurdles.

The regulatory environment poses another challenge. In many African countries, energy policies are still evolving, and the lack of clear regulations can create uncertainty for investors, hindering the deployment of new technologies. Comprehensive energy policies are urgently needed to support innovation while ensuring equitable access to energy resources.

There is also the risk of creating energy inequities. If access to power-to-energy technologies is limited to urban areas or wealthier populations, rural communities may be left behind, exacerbating existing disparities. Prioritizing inclusive energy strategies is crucial to ensuring that all populations benefit from new technologies.

Power Security Issues

Transitioning to power-to-energy systems carries specific risks, particularly concerning power security. Key issues include the reliability of renewable sources, which can lead to vulnerabilities during periods of low production. For instance, solar energy generation drops significantly at night and can be affected by weather conditions. If not managed properly, power-to-energy systems could lead to an over-reliance on stored energy, compromising supply during peak demand.

Cybersecurity risks are also a significant concern. As energy systems become more interconnected and dependent on digital technologies, the threat of cyberattacks increases. Many developing nations may lack the resources and expertise to secure their energy infrastructure, making them vulnerable to disruptions that could have far-reaching economic consequences.

Furthermore, infrastructure vulnerabilities can exacerbate the challenges faced by power-to-energy systems. The physical infrastructure required, such as storage facilities and distribution networks, may be underdeveloped in many regions. Natural disasters or political instability could further disrupt energy supply.

Market volatility is another issue. As power-to-energy technologies expand, the markets for energy carriers such as hydrogen may become more unstable, creating uncertainty for investors and consumers alike.

Power-to-Energy AI and Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity threats to power-to-energy systems in Africa are complex (Cybersecurity Africa, 2021) and can pose significant risks to the stability and reliability of energy infrastructure. The increased digital interconnectivity of these systems creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited by cybercriminals. If not adequately secured, power-to-energy systems may become targets for attacks that could disrupt energy supply or compromise sensitive data.

Many African countries are still in the process of developing their cybersecurity frameworks. Existing measures may be insufficient to protect critical energy infrastructure, making power-to-energy systems more susceptible to attacks. Cyberattacks on these systems can have severe consequences, including power outages, economic disruptions, and threats to public safety.

Insider threats also pose significant risks. Employees or contractors with access to power-to-energy systems can unintentionally compromise security protocols or act maliciously. Additionally, ransomware attacks are increasingly common in various sectors, including energy, where cybercriminals can encrypt critical data and demand ransom for its release.

Moreover, the vast amounts of data generated by power-to-energy systems for operational efficiency and decision-making are at risk. Cyberattacks could compromise the integrity of this data, leading to incorrect operational decisions, inefficient energy distribution, or even equipment damage.

Enhancing Power-to-Energy AI Systems Cybersecurity

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are vital for strengthening cybersecurity efforts in the energy sector. These collaborations leverage the strengths of both sectors to create robust cybersecurity frameworks. By facilitating resource sharing and expertise, public and private entities can collaborate on threat intelligence and capacity building, enhancing situational awareness and effective incident response.

In the event of a cyber incident, PPPs can form coordinated response teams, ensuring a rapid and effective response to minimize damage and restore services. Joint initiatives in policy development can lead to the creation of cybersecurity standards that apply across sectors, providing a consistent framework for protecting critical infrastructure.

Investment in cybersecurity infrastructure can also be bolstered through PPPs. By mobilizing resources and sharing responsibilities for security measures, both sectors can contribute to the overall security landscape. Public awareness campaigns and training programs can educate stakeholders about cybersecurity risks, fostering a supportive environment for investment.

Research and development efforts can drive innovation in cybersecurity technologies, while regulatory compliance guidance can help ensure that regulations are met without imposing undue burdens on businesses. Continuous improvement through collaboration will allow both public and private entities to assess and adapt their cybersecurity measures to the evolving threat landscape.

Incentivizing Power-to-Energy Investments in Africa

A comprehensive set of policies addressing financial, regulatory, and infrastructural challenges is essential to encourage power-to-energy investments in Africa, Financial incentives, such as tax breaks or subsidies for companies investing in power-to-energy technologies, can make projects more financially viable. Establishing government-backed loan programs with favourable terms can also support businesses and communities looking to invest in power-to-energy infrastructure.

Clear regulatory frameworks outlining the permitting process and compliance requirements for power-to-energy projects can build investor confidence. Streamlined permitting processes will reduce bureaucratic delays, while technical standards ensure safety and reliability.

Investment in grid infrastructure is crucial for accommodating new power-to-energy projects. Additionally, fostering public-private partnerships can share risks and resources in developing these projects. Creating targeted support for rural areas, such as funding for projects that enhance energy access, will also be important.

International cooperation is vital for engaging with global funding sources and facilitating knowledge sharing with countries that have successfully implemented power-to-energy technologies. Establishing innovation hubs focused on renewable energy and power-to-energy technologies will encourage research and development, paving the way for new solutions and business models.

Strong regional economic cooperation can be a strong driver. While power-to-energy systems present significant opportunities for addressing energy poverty in Africa, careful planning, investment, and collaboration are essential to navigate the challenges. Regional Economic Communities (RECs) have the potential to play a pivotal role in addressing energy poverty. For instance, the Southern African Development Community (SADC, 2019) has launched initiatives to enhance energy access through the Southern African Power Pool (SAPP), which aims to optimize energy generation and distribution. Similarly, the East Africa power pool have all suggested the imperative for cooperation. However, the implementation of these has remained at snail pace and thus missing out on the potential dividends of a regionally integrated power and energy system

Addressing energy poverty is essential for improving livelihoods and fostering economic resilience in Africa. Collaborative efforts among RECs, governments, and international organizations are crucial to overcoming the challenges posed by energy poverty (World Bank, 2020). By fostering an inclusive approach that emphasizes capacity building and innovation, Africa can harness the potential of these technologies to create a sustainable and equitable energy future.

*Evans Rubara is an experienced Natural Resource Management specialist with a deep focus on extractive geopolitics, environmental politics and Sustainability. He can be reached through evans@africatranscribe.co.tz.

Further Reading

  • African Union. (2019). African Continental AI Strategy.
  • Cybersecurity Africa. (2021). Cybersecurity Threats in Energy Systems.
  • Government of Kenya. (2020). National Cybersecurity Strategy.
  • (2021). World Energy Outlook.
  • (2019). National Cybersecurity Policy.
  • Rwanda Government. (2020). National Cybersecurity Policy.
  • (2019). Southern African Power Pool Initiatives.
  • South African Government. (2020). Cybersecurity Policy Framework.
  • World Bank. (2020). The Impact of Energy Poverty on Economic Development.

[1] https://builtin.com/artificial-intelligence

Understanding of Thermal power, opportunities and limitations for power generation in East Africa.

 

In this brief we focus on geothermal as source of energy, shading some perspectives on what it is, the potential and why it may be an attractive source of energy but also point out the downside factors that may limit its exploitation in East Africa.

By  Moses Kulaba, Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Globally, there is an increasing focus on mitigating climate change by gradually transiting to clean energy sources. With its location along the equator and various volcanic plates, Africa is considered as a sleeping giant of renewable energy sources. Despite this abundancy, Africa lags behind in energy access and investment in renewables generally. If deliberate efforts are not taken, Africa will remain perpetually in Energy poverty. The disparity in East Africa is even worse, with countries facing significant energy shortages and a very small investments in Geothermal power.

According to scientists, geothermal energy is largely heat flowing from the core of the earth’s crust to the top surface, which is trapped and transformed into energy.

The Earth is generally a block of solid rock and molten surfaces. At about 3000km deep into the earth there is a transition from solid rock to an inner molten core comprising of liquid iron, nickel and a mixture of other substances.  The amount of heat within 10,000 meters of the earth’s surface contains 50,000 times more energy than all the oil and natural gas resources in the world.

At this depth, the temperatures raise up to around 5700 Kelvins, which is almost the same on the sun.  These temperatures ordinary do not reach to the surface of the earth because the solid rock between the earth’s surface and its molten core are heat conductors. 

However, the molten rock can escape to the earth surface through an eruption and the heat can reach the earth surface through fissures or cracks. This is trapped and harnessed to generate power as illustrated below:

Where does the heat come from?

Geothermal comes from the Greek word, where ‘Geo’ refers to Earth, and ‘Therme’ refers to Heat. The heat comes from beneath the earth’s crust. Generally, it is found distantly far below the earth’s burning molten rock ‘Magma’ and stored in the rocks and vapour in the earth’s centre. The heat comes from two major sources.

  1. Residual heat, which is heat left over largely when the earth formed during the gravitation aggregation phase when the solar system formed. Small bodied such as asteroids which existed before and collided to form the earth and cooled still exits and emit the heat from their bodies
  2. Decay process of radioactive elements in the earth’s mantle. It is estimated that since the earth formed over 4.5billion years ago, there are significant radio active materials, largely radium, radioactive potassium and others in tiny quantities but the decay of these generated enough materials to keep the earth warm

Geothermal energy resource at the surface is therefore the rate of heat flowing through the earth’s surface at any given location.

The rate of this heat flow is to surface is highly variable and depends on the local geological settings and on the types of rocks directly beneath the surface at any given location.

The heat generated from the earth’s surface is measured in the same way as we measure solar energy (Watts per Meter Square). The hottest points on the earth’s surface are ironically the deep ocean basins where magma is always welling up and creating an undersea chain of volcanic mountains.

These actually create new crusts in the ocean basins.  Continents are relatively cool although there are hot spots on the margins such as in the North America where there are occasional heat flows with rates ranging between 20 milliwatts per square meter to 50,000 milliwatts per hour.

Key Features of Geothermal Power

The key feature of geothermal power is (electricity generation) is the rate at which temperatures increases with depth, which is the Local Geothermal gradient. i.e How far deep you have to reach the rocks that is hot enough to create steam.

An average gradient in the crust is about 25 degrees centigrade per km. i.e if you dig by 1 km deep the temperature at that point will be 25 degrees Celsius and constantly at that rate as you go deep and deeper.

The local gradient and thermal conductivity of the rocks the surface determine the local heat. In the mountain areas where the rocks are relatively recently formed the temperatures are hotter and well suited for geothermal.

Geothermal gradients are important because they determine how deep one has to dig to reach to a rock hot enough to produce steam by exposing water to the hot surface. Even in areas with low gradients, geothermal systems can be used for residential and commercial heating and cooling.

Geothermal power basics

To date geothermal power is still a very small tinny part of the overall electricity generating capacity of the world. The total geothermal capacity was approximately around 15 GW by 2018 and was projected to increase to 18 GW by 2021, compared to 600GW of solar and 400 GW of hydro. Asia had the largest installed capacity of around 4.8GW closely followed by the United States with around 3.5GW.

Types of Geothermal systems

There are largely two types of geothermal systems.  The Hydrothermal systems (Hot wet rock) and the Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS).

The Hydrothermal systems account for nearly all installed and commercial systems. These are systems where natural ground water or injected water is heated at a depth. It is either its natural depth or deep boreholes and circulated through an exchange system to create steam to drive a conventional steam turbine. Hydrothermal systems must have enough natural permeability of rocks to support enough water circulation without high pressure pumping or fracturing of the rocks.

The Enhanced Geothermal System (EGS) is also referred to as the dry rock system, whereby water is circulated through a hot dry rock so the rock itself is hot but doesn’t naturally have water present because it is largely impermeable.

EGS are considered quite revolutionary in the geothermal energy sector as they can be easily installed in multiple places around the world through available engineering methods. Practically, everywhere around the world it is possible to drill and reach enough depth to generate an Engineered Geothermal System.

Why it is attractive

Geothermal has the lowest carbon foot print of any energy system types and the cheapest in dollar terms per megawatt hour produced and therefore quite competitive compared to other sources. Moreover, it can operate at high capacities of around 70% capacity compared to 20% to 30% for solar and wind respectively. Geothermal systems can also easily support other associated economic activities such as tourism in the hot water springs and spurs.

East Africa’s Geothermal potential

Kenya

In East Africa  so far Kenya has the largest geothermal energy systems network located within the Rift Valley with an estimated potential of between 7,000 MW to 10,000 MW spread over 14 prospective sites.  Kenya generates at least 47% of its energy geothermal with a substantive portion of this being generated from the expansive Olkaria station in Naivasha, generating up to 800MW of Kenya’s geothermal power.

Figure 2: Olkaria Geothermal Project in Kenya, Courtesy Photo of Shutterstock

According to Kenya power, so far, the Country sources up to 91% of its energy from renewables with 47% geothermal, 30% hydro, 12% wind and 2% solar. Kenya hopes to transition fully to renewables by 2030, with KenGen saying the country has the potential to increase its capacity to as much as 10,000MW of geothermal energy.

A report by the Geothermal Energy Association noted Kenya as “one of the fasted growing geothermal markets in the world.” The country is fortunate to have great geothermal energy potential, offering a cost-effective alternative to expensive fossil fuel power. In 2017, installed geothermal capacity in Kenya stood around 660 megawatts (MW); the government has established a target of 5,000 MW by 2030[1].

With more than 14 high temperature potential sites occurring along the Rift Valley, Kenya has an estimated potential of more than 10,000 MWe. Other locations include Chyulu, Homa Hills in Nyanza, Mwananyamala at the Coast and Nyambene Ridges which have equally good potential for additional geothermal generation.

As a result, it is predicted that “Kenya will lead the world with substantial additions to their geothermal infrastructure over the next decade and become a center of geothermal technology on the African continent.”

Geothermal has numerous advantages over other sources of power. It is not affected by drought and climatic variability, has the highest availability (capacity factor) at over 95 %, is green energy with no adverse effects on the environment, and is indigenous and readily available in Kenya, unlike most thermal energy that relies on imported fuel. This makes geothermal a very suitable source for baseload electricity generation in the country[2], putting Kenya in clean energy terms, a step ahead of the others in the region.

Tanzania

Tanzania is endowed with a huge geothermal potential which has not yet been used, and has only been explored to a limited extend. According to Tanzania Geothermal Development Company Limited (TGDC), a 100% subsidiary company of Tanzania Electric Supply Company Limited (TANESCO), in 2013 Tanzania had a geothermal power potential of 650 Mw. However given its location along the East African Great rift valley system, it is likely that these figures are conservative and geothermal potential could be higher with some estimates putting it up to the range of 5000 MW.

Most of the identified geothermal resources occur in three regions: in SW Tanzania in the Rungwe volcanic field, where the project site Songwe-Ngozi, is located, in northern Tanzania at the southern end of the eastern branch of the East African Rift system and in eastern Tanzania (e.g. Rufiji Basin) along the Proterozoic mobile belt around the Tanzanian Craton.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Energy, Dr Dotto Biteko said Tanzania would start drilling by April 2024. This was to be a major first step in establishing the resource potential before starting energy production.

However, to date, very limited information is available on the progress of these projects and the actual dates when geothermal power could flow into Tanzania’s energy system are uncertain.

Geothermal power is a reliable, low-cost, environmentally friendly, alternative energy supply and an indigenous, renewable energy source, suitable for electricity generation. With an increasing demand for power amidst outages and uncertain future of the LNG gas to power projects, investment and development of geothermal, could be a major boost to Tanzania’s power needs.

Uganda

The main geothermal areas are Katwe-Kikorongo (Katwe), Buranga, Kibiro and Panyimur located in Kasese, Bundibugyo, Hoima and Pakwach districts respectively. According to available data Uganda geothermal resources are estimated at about 1,500 MW[3].  Currently, the government has ambition to develop up to 100 MW in geothermal power generation capacity in the country, as reported by Afrik21[4].

Uganda’s geothermal potential lies primarily within the western part of the country, with the most prominent prospects found in the Panyimur and Kibiro regions. Geological studies indicate that the East African Rift System, which traverses through Uganda, provides favorable conditions for geothermal reservoirs. The estimated geothermal capacity in the country is substantial, and tapping into these resources could significantly contribute to the nation’s energy mix.

The main geothermal resources of Uganda are centered around Lake Albert and Lake Edward in the districts of Kasese, Hoima, Bundibugyo and Nebbi. This area lies along the Western Branch of the East African Rift System (EARS)[5]

But despite the considered geothermal potential, challenges remain in the development and utilisation of the resources. Uganda’s geological complexity poses challenges for geothermal drilling operations. However, advancements in drilling technologies, such as slim-hole drilling and directional drilling, have the potential to overcome these obstacles. Investing in research and development specific to Ugandan conditions is considered a major factor that will improve drilling efficiency and reduce costs[6].

Obstacles to peaking of Geothermal in East Africa

Despite being the cleanest and most efficient energy source, scaling up geothermal generation in East Africa faces significant obstacles.

  1. The resources are site specific. Globally, hydrothermal systems with wet hot rocks are rare in the world and can only be found in very special locations. Similarly in East Africa these resources are located largely along the Great Rift Valley belt such as Western Uganda, Along the Rift Valley in Kenya and Tanzania
  1. Relatively long lead time of between 5-7 years from conception to production of electricity. Heavy investment in transmission and other support infrastructure due to long distances to existing load centers.
  1. High upfront investment costs. In East Africa, the initial investment costs in geothermal is still expensive compared to other forms such as hydro. According to published data indicate that installation costs range between 2.5 to 6.5 million US$ per MWe. Kenya average installation cost is about 3.6 million US$ per MWe[7]. Geothermal exploration demands money upfront – one well costs about 500 million USD[8]. With a few private investors so far, the governments have to borrow expensive loans to build geothermal power plants.
  1. High resource exploration and development risks. In East Africa there is limited updated knowledge of the geology and geodata about the resource potential. Most of the data was collected in the 1970s and 80s and has been upgraded slowly. For example, McNitt (1982) estimated resource potential for Kenya at 1,700 MW, whereas the latest estimates have revised the potential to 7,000-10,000 MW and similarly in Tanzania the latest resource estimate is about 5000 MW, up from 650 MW in 1982.
  1. Inadequate geothermal expertise. Unlike other power options, it requires highly skilled technicians. In a developing country such as in East Africa, geothermal training programs are hard to come by and local experts are limited.
  1. Land use conflicts. Geothermal power stations require substantive large chunks of free land to develop. In this process there can be potential risks for land conflicts between the government or investors and local residents.
  1. Risks for natural disasters. EGS systems have to deal with induced seismicity, or fracturing of rocks to high depth of about 10km or deeper, which risks induced earth quakes due to injected fluids through fracturing. This technology despite being revolutionary in nature is yet to become readily and cheaply available in East Africa.

Key policy recommendations

  1. Conduct and update the existing geodata on the resource potential and feasibility. Experts confirm the only way forward for scaling up geothermal might be for the “government to carry out feasibility studies and exploration to attract private sector development. Once areas with geothermal energy capacity are well mapped out, (…) it will be easier to attract investment in this sphere.”
  1. Scale up investment in existing geothermal projects. Given its huge initial investment costs, the government can reduce this burden by developing projects through Private Partnerships (PPPs) structured investments. Moreover, the government must continue to support and fund geothermal resource assessment and development so as to manage the geothermal exploration risk and attract investors.
  1. Reduce administrative barriers and corruption in the energy sector, by among others, adequate financing of dedicated Geothermal departments, streamlining licensing and allocation of geothermal blocks with incentives and sanctions in order to accelerate geothermal development.
  1. Promote research, development and capacity building for geothermal development by providing fiscal and other incentives. Investment in training can reduce on the current specialized skills gap required for Geothermal development and operations.
  1. Increase marketing of East Africa’s Geothermal potential and its value as a clean energy source. This can be further ramped up by the government packaging and offering multiple incentives through attractive pricing to promote and encourage direct uses of geothermal resources such as utilization of heat, water, gases and minerals. In other words, investment in Geothermal is not only an investment in the energy sector but also in associated productive ecosystem around it, including tourism. A good example is the Olkaria hot spur in Naivasha.
  1. Promote early geothermal generation through implementation of efficient modular geothermal technologies. This is essential in cutting back on the long lead time from conception to production by more than half.
  1. Enforce proper compliance to mitigate possible occurrence of disasters such as man induced earth quakes from fracturing for geothermal power with the regulatory requirement to utilize the best available technologies that optimize the resource and conserve the reservoir.

[1] https://ndcpartnership.org/knowledge-portal/good-practice-database/geothermal-energy-powering-kenyas-future-menengai-geothermal-field-development#:~:text=The%20country%20is%20fortunate%20to,of%205%2C000%20MW%20by%202030.

[2] https://renewableenergy.go.ke/technologies/geothermal-energy/

[3] https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/uganda-targets-geothermal-development-of-up-to-100-mw-by-2025/

[4] https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/uganda-targets-geothermal-development-of-up-to-100-mw-by-2025/

[5] https://www.carbon-counts.com/uganda-geothermal-resources

[6] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/geothermal-energy-engineering-uganda-harnessing-earths-enyutu-elia/

[7] https://rafhladan.is/bitstream/handle/10802/6070/UNU-GTP-SC-17-1201.pdf?sequence=1#:~:text=The%20installation%20cost%20is%20also,3.6%20million%20US%24%20per%20MWe.

[8] https://www.euronews.com/business/2022/11/14/cheap-and-eco-friendly-the-huge-potential-of-geothermal-power

Tanzania’s Mining Investment Climate: Reforms that government should take to attract and retain new mining investors

According to the Ministry of Minerals, government stands ready to facilitate investor meetings and explore potential business ventures in Tanzania. However, investors operating under the current mining regime in Tanzania still face challenges which require a thorough regime review and fix, for the challenges to go.

Author:  Governance and Economic Policy Centre

Tanzania is endowed with a variety of mineral resources and has been successful in attracting large mining investments. However, over the past few years, this investment curve stagnated and has zigzaged out, as potential new investors stayed away in fear of a potentially unpredictable regulatory mining regime.  In order to attract and retain new large-scale projects, investors suggest, that pertinent reforms must be made.

This brief traces Tanzania’s mining history and from an investor perspective, shows how the country started losing the momentum and its share as a leading mining destination. It proposes some actions and reforms that could be made to reclaim its glory while at the same time achieving a win-win regime for sustainable mining and development.

Tanzania’s mining in a historical context

Mining and minerals trading has a long history in Tanzania, dating back to 18th century when Arab traders plied the Tanzanian coastal towns bringing spices from the Arabian gulf in exchange for gold, copper, iron and other minerals.  Records show that the German colonialists discovered gold in Geita and Sekenke (Singida) where the first gold mine was established in 1909.

In 1940 a Canadian Geologist Dr. John Williamson discovered the Mwadui Kimberlite pipe and established a diamond mine there.  After his death in 1958 his heirs sold the mine to De Beers (50%) and the British colonial government (50%).

In 1971 the government of Tanzania nationalised all mines.  The State Mining Corporation (STAMICO) took ownership of the Diamond mine and run it between 1974 to 1993 when years of ill maintenance took their toll to cause an urgent need of recapitalisation and equipment overhaul.  This need came at a time when the country was going through a tough economic situation that it was not possible to accommodate the need.  A decision was made to invite De Beers to the rescue. They agreed to recapitalise the company and in return acquired a 75% stake in the mine in 1994.  In 2009 DE Beers sold their 75% stake to Petra Diamonds.

Following economic troubles of the seventies, raising fuel prices, geopolitical tensions between ‘east and west’, the 1978/79 war between Tanzania and Uganda, low commodity prices for the country’s backbone agriculture produce (cotton, coffee & sisal) exports, the Tanzanian economy continued to deteriorate to the extent that the country was left with no other option but to embrace free market economic policies advocated by the Bretton Woods Institutions. 

With advice and guidance from the World Bank and IMF, Tanzania liberalised its mining sector and invited foreign investors.  This was during the 3rd phase government of H.E. Benjamin William Mkapa (RIP). The shift to free market economy and liberalised mining industry required new policies, laws and regulations.

New Mining Reforms and knock off effects

A Mineral Policy was formulated in 1997.  The policy gave way for private sector to take the lead in mineral exploration, development, mining, beneficiation and marketing.  Instead of being an active participant, the government would become the facilitator, the regulator and the administrator. This policy was complimented by the Mining Act 1998.

The Mineral Policy 1997 and accompanying Mining Act 1998 together with personal efforts by the late President Benjamin William Mkapa resulted in foreign mining investors in their multitudes flocking the country.  In a span of about eleven years (1998 – 2009) six large scale gold mines were opened.  These are:

  • Golden Pride Mine in 1998, owned by Resolute Mining Limited of Australia
  • Geita Gold Mine in 2000, owned by Anglogold Ashanti of South Africa
  • Bulyanhulu Gold Mine in 2001, owned by Barrick Gold of Canada
  • North Mara Gold Mine in 2002, owned by Sutton Resources of Canada and later the mine was acquired by Barrick Gold of Canada
  • Tulawaka Gold Mine in 2005, owned by Pangea Minerals – a wholly owned subsidiary of Barrick Gold of Canada
  • Buzwagi Gold Mine in 2009, owned by Barrick Gold

Despite the many benefits that the new mines brought, including improved balance of trade realised by increased gold exports, increased government revenue collection through import & employment taxes, the multiplier effect that was created by new business opportunities to local suppliers and contractors, there was still a public outcry that the country was not getting enough.

It deemed necessary to form various committees and task them with reviewing the country’s policy, law, regulations and public views on the mining industry and compare the findings to the practice in other African countries.  The aim was to improve the playing field to achieve a win-win situation.  Four committees were formed for the cause at different times between 2002 and 2009:

  • General (Rtd) Robert Mboma Committee in 2002
  • Kipokola Committee in 2004
  • Lau Masha Committee in 2008
  • Judge Mark Bomani (RIP) Committee in 2009

Observations and opinions collected from the various committees led to the formation of a new Mineral Policy in 2009 and enactment of the (new) Mining Act 2010.

Vision of the Mineral Policy 2009 was to attain an effective mineral sector that contributes significantly to the acceleration of socio-economic development of the country, through sustainable development and utilization of mineral resources by the year 2025.  This included attaining a GDP contribution of 10%.  Note that the GDP contribution of the mining sector was 2.7% in 2010 (BOT Annual Report June 2011). Focus of the Mineral Policy 2009 was to integrate mining with other sectors of the economy.

It’s interesting to note that:

  • After establishment of the Mining Act 2010 and its accompanying regulations, only one ‘medium scale’ gold mine was constructed – the New Luika Mine in 2012.
  • Thereafter, there have been a limited number of medium scale mines (smaller in size and production capacity than New Luika) which have been constructed, but not a single large scale mine has been built ever since.

Following the change of government in 2015, the Mining Act 2010 was further overhauled in 2017 and led to the current version of the act – Mining Act CAP 123 R.E. 2019.  This overhaul was complemented by two new acts:

  • The Natural Wealth and Resources (Permanent Sovereignty) Act, 2017
  • The Natural Wealth and Resources Contracts (Review and Renegotiation of Unconscionable Terms) Act, 2017

The Mining Act CAP 123 R.E. 2019 introduced new clauses which imposed more control of natural resources by the government.  It banned export of mineral concentrates and put more emphasis on local refining of extracted minerals.  It revoked retention licenses and introduced new clauses to govern local content and corporate social responsibility.  The intent was to see more participation of Tanzanians in management of the foreign owned mining companies and in the value chain of the mined minerals.  Instead of exporting raw minerals the companies were required to beneficiate locally before export. The Government was also enabled by the law to acquire at least 15% un-dilutable free carried interest in Mining Licenses and Special Mining Licenses.

Key takes from the new law on ‘permanent sovereignty’ were introduction of clauses which mandated for:

  • Arbitration of commercial disputes in local courts and using Tanzanian law
  • Review by Parliament of agreements entered on natural resources
  • Local beneficiation of mined minerals
  • Retention of earnings in local banks

The ‘review and renegotiation of unconscionable terms’ act gave mandate for the Parliament to review any agreement on natural resources previously entered by the government, to be reviewed and renegotiated if the terms entered appeared to be unconscionable.

In a 2017 commentary, titled: Tanzania Overhauls Mining Laws, Fines Investor US$190 Billion: Is Your Investment Protected?  the JonesDay, a leading commercial law firm wrote; ‘The new laws heighten the government’s role and power in investment contracts, increase the costs of foreign investment, and substantially reduce investment protections, including international arbitration. Investors should take immediate action to mitigate the risks associated with the Tanzanian government’s actions pertaining to the mining industry[1]. Despite current government reassurances, to date these fears have continued to revibrate among risk averse investors, who remain uncertain of Tanzania’s future investment climate. For these laws have never been repealed.

Factors driving mining investment decisions

To put matters in context, one crucial criterion that attracts mining investors to a country is rich geology that has a scientific potential to host high grade orebodies. Tanzania is among the African countries blessed with such geology.  But to attract mining investors rich geology cannot stand on its own.  Rich geology must be complemented by:

  1. A conducive business environment
  2. A stable fiscal/mining regime
  3. Security of tenure
  4. Political stability and peace in the country
  5. Skilled artisans
  6. Good infrastructure – roads, rails, power, etc.

Over the years until in the recent past the country managed to do well in the list above on items 4 to 6.  Items 1 to 3, however, have been a challenge.

 Wins and missed opportunity

When the first large scale mine was established in 1998 at Lusu ward, Nzega district, Tanzania had a challenging road, rail and power infrastructure.  Some important mining skills were lacking.  But the country was politically stable, mining companies owning Special Mining Licenses had their fiscal issues stabilised by the Mining Development Agreements (MDA) signed with the government, there was security of tenure and a good business environment.  Over time, good progress continued to be made in some areas, but there was deterioration of circumstances in other areas as noted by  investors. 

Frequent and unilateral changes to laws and regulations led to breach of mine development agreements (MDAs).  Some concessions given to investors through the signed Mine Development Agreements were not honoured by the Tanzania Revenue Authority because they were not gazetted, and despite requests from concerned investors the Ministry of Finance avoided gazetting the MDA’s.

Significant improvement and upgrade made to road and power infrastructure; and skills development was defeated by unnecessary red tape brought about by introduction of a multiplicity of regulators who appeared to be more focused in raising revenue through hefty fines rather than providing oversite and regulating the sector.

Security of tenure was put at risk by uncontrolled gold rushes and haphazard trespassing by unlicensed artisanal miners. Investors who had invested millions of US Dollars in green field exploration witnessed invasion of their tenements by unlicensed artisanal miners with no serious intervention by authorities to rescue the situation, allowing the invasions to be politically concluded at the demise of the investor.

In summary, the current mining industry in Tanzania has been a mixed grill of successes and failures. Despite the many ups and downs over the years, several ‘wins’ have been witnessed by the sector following revision of the Mining Act CAP 123 R.E. 2019 and enactment of the laws on sovereignty in natural resources and renegotiation of unconscionable terms on agreements entered by the government on natural resources:

  • Renegotiation of the Mining Development Agreement entered between the Government of Tanzania and Barrick Gold Corporation which led to Acquisition of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake by the Government in Barrick Gold mining projects in Tanzania (Bulyanhulu & North Mara Gold Mines) and signing of a Framework Agreement between the Government and the company.
  • Acquisition of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake by the Government of Tanzania in the Kabanga Nickel project (Tembo Nickel Corporation).
  • Acquisition by the Tanzanian Government of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake in the Ecograph Epanko graphite project
  • Acquisition by the Tanzanian government of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake in the Peak Resources Ngualla REE project (through Mamba Minerals)
  • Acquisition of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake by the Government in the Strandline Resources Heavy Minerals Sands project through Nyati Resources
  • Acquisition by the government of a 15% un-dilutable free carried stake in the Evolution Energy Chilalo Graphite project through Kudu Graphite Limited
  • Acquisition of a 20% un-dilutable free carried government stake in the Perseus Mining Nyanzaga Gold Project through Sota Mining Ltd.
  • Increased royalty collections following increase of the royalty on gold to 6% from the previous 4%
  • Increased gold revenue collections through the introduction of 1% inspection fee on gold exports
  • Construction of 3 gold refineries in Mwanza, Geita and Dodoma which have not only facilitated purchase of refined gold by the Bank of Tanzania but have also created employment opportunities to Tanzanians.
  • Enforcement of local content regulations which have in turn facilitated the participation of Tanzanians in the mines supply chain.
  • Enforcement of new local content regulations have made it possible for several Tanzanians to take over senior management positions in foreign mining companies investing in Tanzania
  • Enforcement of new CSR regulations have enabled CSR projects to be managed in a fair and transparent manner, ensuring value for money of the projects.
  • Introduction of the online Mining Cadastre system has revolutionised the licensing process by modernising it. The ‘first come first served’ approach in license application is working fine and fairly.  So long as they have all the required supporting documents in soft / electronic form, applicants are now able to lodge license applications from wherever they are in the world. They just need to be connected to the internet.
  • Significant improvements in power generation and transmission capacity have enabled connection of major mines to the national electricity grid. It was heartwarming to witness connection of the Geita Gold Mine (Anglogold Ashanti) to the national power grid.  This event shall not only save the company millions of US Dollars in energy cost, but it will also increase Tanesco’s revenue.  The Geita mine used to consume about 8 million litres of diesel every month to generate electricity using a rented thermal plant.

But, have the country now achieved a win-win situation? How is this goal going to be realised?

In the business world the investors would always want to maximise their profits and governments would always want to maximise their tax and fees collections to support socioeconomic development.  An attractive and well researched mining regime that involved stakeholder participation in its making is the only one that will manage to at least strike a delicate balance between the profits anticipated by the investors and the taxes and fees anticipated by the Government.

Obstacles that Tanzania Mining investors face

Courtesy Photo: Tanzania Minerals Minister, Anthony Mavunde speaks to stakeholders in Dar es Salaam

According to the Ministry of Minerals, government stands ready to facilitate investor meetings and explore potential business ventures in Tanzania. This unwavering commitment to attracting foreign investment underscores the nation’s dedication to unlocking the full potential of its mining sector. Tanzania Mining industry is highly important since it accounts for a significant share of the country’s export revenues. The Government plans to have this sector contribute 10% of GDP by 2025.

However, investors operating under the current mining regime in Tanzania still face challenges which require a thorough regime review and fix, for the challenges to go.

  • Several advanced mining projects including the ones in Graphite, REE, Heavy Mineral Sands and Gold have continued to struggle in raising project finance due to some clauses in different laws governing the mining sector in relation to the ownership of won minerals as well as banking of mineral sales proceeds
  • Extended negotiations on the making of framework agreements have been one area that frustrates many investors whose projects have reached that stage in their development
  • If left the way they are, some local content procurement tendering procedures have the potential to cause costly delays during the construction phase of the advanced projects
  • If left as currently reads, some wording on Section 56 of the Income Tax Act CAP 332 R.E. 2006 will end up ‘taxing’ capital of exploration companies when shareholding changes. Triggering imposition of Section 56 will cause a 30% capital gain tax on a junior exploration company when part of whose shares are acquired by another company for the intent of capitalising the junior company.  It should be noted here that exploration companies are not operating mines and instead of making money they normally burn money trying to find a mineable mineral deposit.  Trying to tax a non-trading company is weird and unheard in the mining industry.  The only way we can generate new mines to replace closed ones is by promoting exploration – not discouraging, investors say
  • The Income Tax Act CAP 332 R.E. 2006 disallows deduction of Royalty costs when calculating taxable income of a mining entity. This is a concern because no company is allowed to export minerals unless it has paid Royalty, meaning that royalty is part and parcel of the costs incurred to generate revenue of the company and should therefore be an allowable deduction

The above listed are only a few issues of concern to mining investors and something that the Government needs to have another look about or even conduct a study to see their quantitative impact in discouraging mining investment in Tanzania and what will be the impact (pro or cons) if some of the clauses will be amended to reflect investor’s proposals.

Proposed remedial actions and reforms that government should take

 There is a raft of measures that government can take. These include;

  1. Asses the current investment climate with a view to determine whether the 2017 mining reforms achieved any significant dividend to the mining sector
  2. Re-examine the current laws, particularly those passed in 2016 and 2017 to see if there are any remaining clauses that may be of concern to the mining investors. Some changes were made , however government should evaluate and see if there are any areas that need further review, without losing the core purpose of securing maximum value for Tanzania.
  3. Re-evaluate Tanzania’s mineral geology and mining potential in the current context and future mining investments trends, with a view of keeping aligned and on course to attract and retain new large-scale investors
  4. The final approach would be to form yet another task force made of representatives who are experts in the field of mining business and mining taxation, from the government and the mining private sector, to mutually consult and come up with a proposal that would attain a level play field balancing the profit anticipation of the investors and the tax and fees anticipation of the Government.

Minerals will always be a finite resource. Value can only be derived from them when they are extracted from underground and used to the benefit of the country.

The opportunity is still there to exploit minerals in Tanzania for the fair benefit of both the Government of Tanzania (on behalf of its people) and the investors. With tweaks to some of the current mining laws, bolstered with stability and government confidence building measures, the Tanzania can recapture and retain its glory as the prime mining investment destination in Africa.

While contemplating on the next move, the government should also make a thorough assessment of mark-timing mining projects – public (like the Liganga iron ore and Mchuchuma coal) and private ones (like the Kabanga Nickel, Mkuju River Uranium and Nyanzaga Gold), to see how such projects can be fast tracked and brought to production stage. With the speed at which technology is developing in the world, Tanzania faces the big risk of having some of its mineral deposit being stranded.  The coal deposits at Mchuchuma are faced with the highest risk with the current push for the world to go green and stop the use of fossil fuels.

With determination and the right people and policies at the forefront, the government can profitably and timely exploit the country’s minerals for the social economic development of its people.

[1] https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2017/08/tanzania-overhauls-mining-laws-fines-investor-us190-billion-is-your-investment-protected

Enhancing Implementation of East Africa’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for Climate Resilience: Is it an Exercise in futility?

The Paris Agreement in 2016 set targets to cut global cut global emissions and keep temperatures below 2 degrees Centigrade by 2030 and total net zero by 2010. But so far, we doing so badly, that these targets are largely likely to be missed. In the last few years C02 emissions have been hitting record new high levels ever recorded in billions of years.

Author: Nader M. Khalifa, Governance & Economics Policy Centre, Tanzania, October 2024

  1. Introduction

East Africa faces increasing climate risks, including unpredictable rainfall patterns, severe droughts, and flooding. These climate challenges threaten livelihoods, economic development, and environmental sustainability across the region. Under the Paris Agreement, East African nations have committed to ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhancing resilience to climate impacts. This policy paper explores the state of NDCs in East Africa and offers a comparative analysis of Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda’s NDCs, emphasizing recommendations to increase funding, strengthen climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.

  1. Context of NDCs in East Africa

Countries in East Africa are committed to reducing emissions and adapting to climate impacts. Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have outlined ambitious NDCs centered on expanding renewable energy, promoting climate-smart agriculture, and building climate-resilient infrastructure. However, significant challenges hinder the implementation of these targets, including financial constraints, limited technical capacity, and political and social barriers. Addressing these challenges is essential to achieve East Africa’s climate resilience goals.

  1. Comparative Analysis of East African NDCs: Emission Targets and Key Factors

East African countries exhibit varied commitments and approaches within their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) based on their unique socio-economic contexts, vulnerability to climate impacts, and institutional capacities. Below is a detailed comparison of emission targets, adaptation and mitigation efforts, financial requirements, and implementation challenges among Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda.

  • Emission Reduction Targets

  • Kenya: Kenya has committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 32% by 2030 compared to the Business-as-Usual (BAU) scenario. Kenya’s mitigation efforts focus primarily on the energy sector, which includes an ambitious plan to expand renewable energy (particularly geothermal) and enhance energy efficiency across industries.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s NDC commits to reducing emissions by 30% by 2030 relative to its BAU scenario. Tanzania’s mitigation focus is on increasing the share of renewable energy, combating deforestation, and improving energy efficiency in industries.
  • Uganda: Uganda aims for a 22% reduction in emissions by 2030. Like Kenya and Tanzania, Uganda’s mitigation strategy heavily emphasizes renewable energy, particularly hydropower, and afforestation efforts, along with energy efficiency improvements in households and industry.

These are quite high targets. For these to be achieved EAC will have to plant so many trees and decarbonize to zero emission in so many sectors such as manufacturing, transportation, agriculture and construction.

Adaptation Strategies

  • Kenya: Kenya is highly vulnerable to climate change, particularly in agriculture, water resources, and human settlements. Its adaptation strategies include promoting drought-resistant crops, improving irrigation and water management systems, and investing in climate-resilient infrastructure (such as flood-proof buildings and early warning systems for extreme weather events). Kenya’s NDC prioritizes ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA) practices to enhance resilience in both rural and urban areas.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s adaptation efforts center around sustainable agriculture and forestry, recognizing the importance of these sectors for food security and livelihoods. The country prioritizes improving water resource management, soil fertility restoration, and expanding agroforestry. Adaptation initiatives also target improving the health sector’s ability to cope with climate change-induced diseases.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s adaptation strategies are focused on improving agricultural productivity, increasing resilience in water resource management, and developing sustainable forestry practices. A major component of Uganda’s adaptation plan is strengthening community-based adaptation, particularly in regions vulnerable to extreme weather events like floods and droughts.

Renewable Energy and Mitigation

  • Kenya: Kenya is one of Africa’s renewable energy leaders, with over 90% of its electricity generated from renewable sources, predominantly geothermal, hydropower, and wind. The country aims to further increase its share of clean energy, making it central to its mitigation strategy. The government’s expansion plans include increasing solar installations and expanding geothermal capacity.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s renewable energy sector is less developed compared to Kenya. However, the country plans to expand its reliance on hydropower and solar energy, with targeted investments in rural electrification projects powered by renewables. Tanzania’s NDC also prioritizes improving energy efficiency in both industrial and domestic sectors.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s energy mix is primarily hydropower-based, and its NDC targets further expansion of this sector. The country is also exploring solar energy as part of its rural electrification strategy. Uganda’s mitigation efforts also focus on reducing emissions from deforestation and promoting sustainable land management practices.

Financial Requirements and Challenges

NDC is proving  too expensive for EAC Countries to achieve. The cumulative estimated mitigation and adaptation  funding requirement for Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya is about USD109.3Bln 

  • Kenya: Kenya has estimated that it will need $62 billion to implement its NDC by 2030, of which 87% is expected to come from international climate finance. Financial constraints, particularly in securing adequate international support, remain a critical challenge for implementing large-scale renewable energy projects and climate-resilient infrastructure.

 

  • Tanzania: Tanzania’s NDC estimates the need for $19.2 billion by 2030 to meet its mitigation and adaptation targets. Securing adequate financing from both domestic and international sources is a major hurdle, especially for funding long-term initiatives like reforestation, energy efficiency programs, and renewable energy development.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s NDC implementation is projected to cost $28.1 billion, with a significant portion expected from external sources. Uganda’s challenges revolve around mobilizing sufficient funds for rural electrification projects, water management systems, and agricultural resilience initiatives.

 

Implementation Barriers

  • Kenya: While Kenya has strong institutional frameworks for implementing its NDCs, challenges include weak local capacity in monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, as well as difficulties in attracting consistent international funding. Political stability in the country helps foster a more conducive environment for climate action, but there are gaps in integrating climate policy across sectors.
  • Tanzania: Tanzania faces significant barriers in terms of technical expertise and capacity for implementing its NDCs. Limited access to data and modern technologies, particularly in rural areas, hampers the effective rollout of renewable energy and agricultural adaptation strategies. Political commitment is strong but often challenged by competing development priorities.
  • Uganda: Uganda’s main implementation challenges include a lack of technical capacity and institutional coordination. While Uganda has ambitious NDC targets, the limited financial and technical resources available for adaptation, especially in agriculture and water management, slow down progress. Moreover, the country struggles with integrating climate action into local governance structures.

The global total emissions is over 50 bln tones annually shared out per sector as follows

No Sector % Co2 Emissions
1 Manufacturing (Oil, Gas, Steel, Cement, Chemicals & Mining) 29%
2 Electricity (Coal, Natural Gas, Oil) 29%
3 Agriculture (Landuse, Waste, Crops & Livestock) 20%
4 Transportation 15%
5 Building (Cooling, Heating) 7%

Source:  Netflix Documentary; What is Next? The Future with Bill Gates

 

The long-term trend is that are not seeing any decline in Co2 emissions in the next future. The last time the planet was this hot was about 20,000,000 years ago. To get to net zero requires netting out to zero by sectors for each Country and this is a gigantic task.

  • Regional Cooperation and Potential Solutions

There is potential for stronger regional cooperation among East African countries to address common climate challenges, particularly around renewable energy development, cross-border water resource management, and shared capacity-building efforts. This includes:

  • Joint Renewable Energy Projects: Collaborative renewable energy initiatives, such as regional geothermal or hydroelectric projects, can reduce costs and improve energy access across borders.
  • Capacity Building through Regional Bodies: Institutions like the East African Community (EAC) and African Union (AU) can help facilitate knowledge sharing, technical training, and the development of MRV systems tailored to regional needs.
  • Shared Climate Finance Mechanisms: Establishing a regional climate fund or enhancing existing ones could help streamline the mobilization of climate finance to meet the collective NDC ambitions of East African countries.
  1. Recommendations for Enhancing East African Countries’ NDCs and Climate Resilience

East African countries like Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have made significant strides in formulating their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to combat climate change. However, to effectively meet their climate goals and enhance resilience, the following strategic recommendations are essential:

  • Increase Climate Financing Access

Recommendation: Establish a more structured approach to accessing international climate finance and improve domestic resource mobilization.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Strengthen partnerships with international financial institutions such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), and bilateral climate finance partners.
    • Develop and refine national climate finance strategies to better align with donor priorities and global climate funding criteria.
    • Encourage private sector participation by developing incentives such as tax breaks, green bonds, and public-private partnerships to fund renewable energy and adaptation projects.
    • Enhance Regional Cooperation

Recommendation: Foster collaboration among East African countries for shared climate solutions, leveraging regional strengths and resources.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Establish regional climate action platforms under the East African Community (EAC) to facilitate joint renewable energy projects, share best practices, and coordinate climate adaptation measures.
    • Promote cross-border initiatives like regional renewable energy projects (e.g., geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric plants) that can serve multiple countries and reduce costs.
    • Strengthen regional bodies for coordinated action on shared ecosystems, such as the Nile Basin Initiative, to ensure joint management of water resources affected by climate change.
    • Strengthen Technical Capacity and MRV Systems

Recommendation: Develop and improve Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems to ensure more accurate tracking of NDC implementation and climate progress.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Invest in training programs for local technical experts on MRV systems, GHG inventory, and data management, with support from international partners.
    • Collaborate with international organizations like the Initiative for Climate Action Transparency (ICAT) and UNEP to implement best practices in MRV across sectors.
    • Develop a regional MRV framework within the EAC to allow for collective data tracking, knowledge sharing, and standardization of methods for measuring progress on NDCs.
    • Focus on Climate-Resilient Agriculture

Recommendation: Prioritize climate-smart agriculture to safeguard food security, livelihoods, and ecosystem health.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Expand the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices, such as promoting drought-resistant crop varieties, efficient water use systems, and agroforestry.
    • Increase investment in agricultural research and development to identify crops and farming techniques that are more resilient to changing climate conditions.
    • Provide capacity-building support to smallholder farmers through training programs on sustainable agricultural practices and offering financial mechanisms (e.g., microloans) for adopting these methods.
    • Develop Green Infrastructure and Urban Resilience

Recommendation: Promote the development of climate-resilient infrastructure to adapt to future climate risks in urban areas.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Invest in green urban planning that includes building flood-proof structures, expanding public green spaces, and improving waste and water management systems in urban centers.
    • Encourage the adoption of eco-friendly public transportation systems, such as electric buses or improved public transport infrastructure, to reduce emissions from the transport sector.
    • Create urban climate resilience strategies that incorporate natural solutions, such as restoring wetlands and reforestation to serve as buffers against climate impacts like flooding and heatwaves.
    • Promote Renewable Energy Development

Recommendation: Expand renewable energy initiatives to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and enhance energy access.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Fast-track the development of large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects to increase renewable energy capacity.
    • Provide incentives for both local and international private investments in clean energy infrastructure, including tax reliefs, subsidies, and regulatory reforms that encourage clean energy deployment.
    • Integrate renewable energy initiatives with rural electrification programs to provide off-grid renewable energy solutions to rural areas, improving both energy access and climate resilience.
    • Integrate Climate Adaptation into National Development Plans

Recommendation: Ensure climate resilience is mainstreamed across all sectors of national development policies and strategies.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Align national development goals (e.g., poverty eradication, healthcare, and education) with climate action priorities to foster sustainable development pathways.
    • Develop sector-specific adaptation plans (e.g., in agriculture, water, health, and infrastructure) and ensure these are supported by legislation and long-term budget commitments.
    • Promote community-based adaptation strategies that empower local communities to develop localized solutions to climate impacts, such as improved land management or water conservation techniques.
    • Support Gender-Responsive Climate Action

Recommendation: Ensure that NDCs are gender-responsive and include strategies to protect vulnerable populations, particularly women and children.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Mainstream gender considerations into all climate action projects, ensuring that women, who are disproportionately affected by climate change, are included in decision-making processes.
    • Develop gender-specific programs that focus on building women’s resilience to climate impacts in areas like agriculture, water resource management, and entrepreneurship.
    • Collaborate with women-led organizations and networks to amplify their role in climate adaptation and mitigation efforts.
    • Promote Innovation and Climate Technology Transfer

Recommendation: Accelerate the deployment of climate technologies to enhance adaptation and mitigation efforts.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Establish a regional climate technology hub to facilitate the transfer and development of clean technologies tailored to East Africa’s unique climate challenges.
    • Create a favorable policy environment that incentivizes innovation, such as offering grants or tax credits for start-ups and businesses that develop climate solutions.
    • Encourage collaboration with international partners for access to cutting-edge technologies, including in renewable energy, early warning systems, and agricultural resilience technologies.
    • Strengthen Institutional Governance and Policy Coordination

Recommendation: Improve governance frameworks and inter-sectoral coordination to enhance the implementation of NDCs.

  • Actionable Steps:
    • Establish national climate task forces to oversee the integration of NDCs across various government departments, ensuring climate policies are effectively coordinated and implemented.
    • Improve policy coherence between climate action, agriculture, energy, and economic development sectors to avoid conflicts and inefficiencies in NDC implementation.
    • Ensure strong participation from civil society, local governments, and the private sector to promote inclusive climate governance.

 

Conclusion

Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda have demonstrated strong commitment to their NDCs, yet significant challenges—such as financial constraints, technical capacity gaps, and implementation barriers—continue to hinder their climate ambitions. Overcoming these obstacles will require enhanced regional cooperation, dedicated capacity-building efforts, and innovative financing solutions, with support from the international community playing a crucial role. By embracing these strategies and recommendations, East African countries can strengthen their resilience to climate impacts, close the gap between climate goals and actions, and contribute substantially to sustainable development and global climate efforts, ultimately improving the quality of life for their citizens.

 

 

 

 

  1. References:
  1. African Development Bank (AfDB) (2020). African Economic Outlook 2020: Developing Africa’s Workforce for the Future. AfDB, Abidjan.
  1. Africa NDC Hub, https://africandchub.org/
  1. East African Community (EAC) (2021). EAC Climate Change Policy and Strategy. EAC, https://www.eac.int/environment/climate-change/eac-climate-change-policy-framework
  2. IPCC (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
  1. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report – Chapter 9, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-9/
  1. Kenya Ministry of Environment and Forestry (2020). Kenya’s Updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Government of Kenya, Nairobi.
  1. NDC Partnership Knowledge Portal, https://ndcpartnership.org/climate-finance
  1. Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment (2022). Uganda’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). Government of Uganda, Kampala.
  2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015). The Paris Agreement. United Nations, Bonn, Germany.
  3. Tanzania Vice President’s Office (2021). Updated Nationally Determined Contribution of Tanzania. Government of Tanzania, Dodoma.