Mining Indaba 2026 brought into focus both the opportunities and the fault lines running through the global critical minerals landscape. From artisanal mining governance to geopolitical deal-making, the conversations this year were, in places, more sophisticated than before. In others, it felt like we were at risk of retreading ground we have covered many times. Below are our key takeaways from the discussions we participated in.
1. Growing interest in ASM, but at a risk of repeating old mistakes
There is a clear resurgence of interest in artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) from governments, investors and industry. Much of this is driven by the growing recognition that ASM materials play a critical role in helping market nations secure access to essential minerals and strengthen the resilience of mineral supply chains. That recognition is welcome and long overdue.
What concerns us, however, is that some of the discourse continues to draw on outdated formalisation models and simplified assumptions about risk mitigation justice. Approaches that prioritise rapid licensing, centralised buying schemes, or increased taxation as standalone solutions tend to underestimate the political economy dynamics of ASM, the role of local power structures, and the need for sustained institutional capacity and community engagement to make reforms both durable and equitable.
Based on our experience across multiple African contexts, we are concerned that past mistakes may be repeated, particularly where the objective of improving ASM governance is framed around driving compliance rather than pursuing a systemic reform process to develop the sector as a foundation for socio-economic development. The need for evidence-based, context-specific approaches grounded in human rights and political economy realities has never been greater.
2. A heightened focus on key African producer countries
The DRC, Guinea, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe featured prominently across many of the discussions we participated in this year. These countries are increasingly seen as strategic suppliers of critical minerals, and that status is attracting sustained investor and policy attention.
The momentum reflects the scale of opportunity that trading and investment partners see for these nations. Mining investors are calling for stable and transparent rules, digitisation of mining governance (e.g., licensing and other processes), best-in-class technologies, and greater investment in mining-adjacent and enabling sectors such as energy, transportation and water. What this also reflects, in practical terms, is a growing demand for country-level risk and opportunity mapping, governance analysis and responsible investment guidance across different mineral categories.
3. A stronger and more assertive US presence
Compared to previous years, the United States showed up at Indaba with considerably more assertiveness. The agenda was clear: securing access to African minerals, becoming the preferred partner for strategic African nations, and de-risking private capital mobilisation. The language of partnership was prevalent throughout.
While leadership and investment from multiple nations are necessary, the quality and terms of those deals matter enormously. Key questions remain: will deals be fair between and within nations, or will they entrench elitism and deepen inequality? The rapid development of mining and mining-adjacent projects risks reinforcing mineral-conflict linkages in already fragile contexts.
This underscores the need to put equitable benefit-sharing at the centre of deal-making, project development, operation and closure -- rather than treating it as a footnote to a primarily extractivist agenda. Trade and investment deals need to be human rights-based, embed meaningful stakeholder engagement, including dialogue and mediation, and be gender-responsive in line with the G7 GEAC recommendations to which we contributed.
4. More sophisticated conversations on value addition
One of the more encouraging shifts at this year's Indaba was the evolution in how value addition is being discussed. There was significant momentum around regional partnerships and collaboration, which reflects a more realistic understanding of the challenge: adding value to every mineral in every country is not feasible. The question is not whether to add value to African mineral supply chains, but where and how. Determining which value chains to prioritise, and which segments to focus on, is the critical task.
The African Development Bank's recent feasibility study on the battery value chain in Africa, presented at Indaba, offered a strong example of how investible projects on the continent might be identified in a credible, systematic way. Development Finance Institutions also made clear that they want greater attention to shared value and beneficiation, particularly in ensuring that infrastructure investments serve not just mining interests but broader economic development through multipurpose agendas and greater connectivity.
The discussions moved well beyond narrow downstream processing narratives toward broader beneficiation and industrial development strategies. There was increased emphasis on skills development, dignified work and job creation; on multipurpose infrastructure including power, roads and ports; and on approaching local suppliers and communities as genuine partners rather than recipients of CSR initiatives. However, infrastructure-led derisking carries its own social and environmental impacts, and equity and justice must remain central to implementation.
5. An evolving understanding of criticality and resource nationalism
Conversations on critical minerals were more sophisticated this year. The concept of criticality itself is being viewed more mutually -- not only from importing-market perspectives, but increasingly from African producer-country perspectives as well. Critical to whom? That question is becoming harder to ignore.
This aligns with rising resource nationalism, with African states seeking greater control, leverage and value capture, as articulated clearly in the Africa Green Minerals Strategy. In theory, this can support development outcomes. In practice, whether it does will depend on governance capacity and political will. The same forces that create opportunities for greater equity can, under the wrong conditions, concentrate benefits in the hands of a few.
6. Escalating corruption risks amid intensifying investment competition
Increased geopolitical competition and accelerated deal-making are heightening corruption and integrity risks across the sector. Anecdotal evidence from Indaba suggests that some actors are already facing and resisting corruption attempts. Not all market participants will do the same.
There is a clear need to strengthen corruption risk management in mineral investments, to use transparency data -- including through EITI reporting frameworks -- more strategically, and to integrate anti-corruption considerations into responsible sourcing and investment due diligence from the outset rather than as an afterthought.
