By Christopher Burke

In an increasingly interconnected and resource-dependent world, Africa's rich mineral wealth stands at the forefront of both opportunity and challenge. Institutions such as the African Mining Vision (AMV), the African Legal Support Facility (ALSF) and a myriad of international frameworks and principles including the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Harmonization of African Mining Policies Initiative (HAMI) launched by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) underscore a critical effort to promote sustainable development and equitable resource management in Africa's extractive industries.

Alongside these are frameworks and principles such as the Equator Principles, IFC Performance Standards, UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), the Kimberley Process and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) that collectively aim to foster transparency, legal support and standardized environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) practices. While arguments over the extent of global multi-polarity continue, most agree the global political landscape is becoming more fragmented and competitive. 

Identities are evolving in tandem with a palpable rise in nationalism across the continent.  A growing number of African governments are pushing back on previously agreed human rights conventions.  Kenya, Ghana, Namibia and Uganda have each recently passed legislation targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) individuals and communities in alleged contradiction of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) among others.

All sustainable governance institutions face the critical task of navigating their roles without falling prey to politicization. Ensuring neutrality and effectiveness is paramount to maintaining the relevance and capacity to foster sustainable and inclusive growth in Africa’s extractive industries and essential if they are to avoid becoming tools of geopolitical maneuvering.

The primary objective of these institutions is clear--to leverage Africa's rich mineral resources for the sustainable development of the continent. The AMV aims to foster the transparent, equitable and optimal exploitation of mineral resources to underpin broad-based sustainable growth and socio-economic development. Similarly, the ALSF provides much-needed legal assistance to African countries in negotiating complex commercial agreements and resolving disputes strengthening their capacity to manage resources effectively.

International frameworks such as the EITI and HAMI play critical roles in the promoting transparency and harmonizing mining policies across Africa. These efforts are intended to facilitate smoother and more efficient operations for multinational companies while ensuring local communities benefit from resource extraction. By setting common standards for ESG practices, frameworks such as the Equator Principles, IFC Performance Standards, UNGPs, the Kimberley Process and GRI ensure that resource extraction does not come at the expense of human rights, environmental sustainability or social equity.

The effectiveness of these institutions and frameworks is increasingly challenged by the politicization of resource governance. The risk of these institutions being co-opted by political agendas rises as the global political environment grows more polarized. Politicization threatens to undermine their credibility and effectiveness making it harder for them to implement their mandates and achieve their goals.

A key danger of politicization is biased decision-making with policies and actions driven by political interests rather than the principles of sustainable development and good governance. This can result in unequal resource distribution with powerful elites benefitting disproportionately while local communities suffer. Moreover, politicization can create conflicts between countries or regions that further complicate efforts to manage resources collaboratively and equitably.

To remain relevant and effective, these multilateral institutions must strive to maintain their neutrality and focus on their core missions. This requires strong governance structures to ensure decisions are made based on objective criteria and evidence rather than political considerations. Transparency and accountability are crucial in this regard.  Institutions must be open about their processes and decision-making criteria and perhaps most importantly be accountable to the stakeholders they serve.

Engaging a broad range of stakeholders is another possible strategy.  Foster deeper engagement with a broader range of governments, private sector entities, civil society organizations and local communities involved in the governance process increases opportunities for all voices to be heard and considered. A more inclusive approach will help build trust and legitimacy making it more difficult for political interests to dominate the agenda.

Capacity-building is vital. Many African countries and local communities lack the expertise and resources needed to effectively engage in resource governance. By providing training, technical assistance, and financial support, institutions such as ALSF can empower these stakeholders to participate more effectively in decision-making processes and advocate for their interests.

The quest for critical minerals, essential for everything from renewable energy technologies to advanced defense systems has intensified geopolitical wrangles with ESG standards increasingly leveraged as tools of economic influence and geopolitical leverage. Resource rich nations such as the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan find themselves in a geopolitical chess game with Western nations dictating stringent ESG compliance to sideline competitors such as China and Russia. Such geopolitical maneuvering transforms ESG standards into instruments of economic warfare, potentially exacerbating global inequalities and fostering divisions.

The weaponization of ESG standards as instruments of economic warfare is increasingly apparent. Access to strategically vital rare earth elements essential for a range of high-tech applications from lithium batteries to cobalt in electric vehicles can be restricted under the guise of ESG compliance with serious consequences for both market dynamics and global national security landscapes. The imposition of ESG standards has led to 'green protectionism' where developed nations erect trade barriers against developing nations that fail to meet these rigorous criteria under the banner of sustainability. The utilization of ESG standards as a pretext to protect domestic industries and preserve market dominance will have profound implications.

The growing number of institutions and frameworks dedicated to promoting sustainable development, transparency, legal support and standardized ESG practices in Africa's extractive industries plays a crucial role in the continent's development. These institutions must maintain their neutrality, ensure transparency and accountability, engage a broad range of stakeholders, build capacity and remain adaptable to avoid the pitfalls of politicization and fragmentation.  Only in this way can they continue to contribute to equitable and sustainable resource governance in Africa, benefiting the continent's people and environment for generations to come.

Christopher Burke is a senior advisor at WMC Africa, a communications and advisory agency in Kampala, Uganda.  He has over 25 years’ experience working on a range of issues in social, political and economic development with a strong focus on governance, conflict transformation, environmental issues, extractives and peace-building based in Asia and Africa.