Africa is quietly rewriting the global mining rules

A summit held in Abuja may not immediately change the global mining landscape, but the signals it sends are definitely worth serious consideration for all Chinese companies paying attention to Africa.  

On June 23, in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, the 5th Africa Natural Resources and Energy Investment Summit (AFNIS 2026) officially opened.  

At the venue, mining and energy ministers from more than a dozen African countries, heads of development finance institutions, executives from international mining companies, and representatives from investment institutions gathered together. The topics discussed weren’t complicated, but they relate to the direction of Africa's development for the next several decades.  

  

Who should set the prices for Africa’s abundant mineral resources in the future? Who should process them? And ultimately, who should benefit from them?  

This isn’t just a slogan; it’s the reality that all resource-rich African countries are facing today.

Over the past twenty-plus years, the world has formed a relatively stable division of resources.  

Africa has the resources and is responsible for extraction; Europe and America hold the capital, technology, and financial systems; Asia takes on manufacturing and processing. Ore gets exported from Africa and keeps gaining value along the global supply chain, while the resource countries often only get the lowest-profit part of that chain.  

Take lithium, for example. One ton of unprocessed ore compared to one ton of refined, processed battery material can differ in value by several times, or even tens of times. The real high value isn’t in the ore itself, but in the later processing, manufacturing, branding, and technology.  

  

This is also why, in recent years, more and more African countries have started reflecting: despite being rich in resources, why has the economy been unable to shake off reliance on exporting primary products?

At the AFNIS Summit, a cooperation mechanism called MADE (Mutual Africa Development Framework) was officially launched.  

Many reports have been introducing its name, members, and organizational structure.  

But in my view, what really deserves attention isn’t the name itself, but the direction it represents.  

Simply put, it’s one sentence: the hope that more mineral value stays in Africa. In the future, it’s not just about selling minerals; the goal is to carry out more processing locally, not just export resources, but also build the industrial chain, not just attract foreign investment, but also gain jobs, technology, and industrial capacity through investment.  

  

For developing countries that have long relied on resource exports, this is almost an unavoidable development choice.  

In fact, this change didn’t start today. In the past few years, similar policies have gradually appeared in multiple African resource-rich countries.  

Mali is re-examining mining cooperation agreements to increase national revenue.  

Guinea is continuously strengthening the regulation of mining development to promote the standardized use of mineral resources.  

Zimbabwe is steadily raising requirements for local processing of mineral products, hoping that more minerals can add value domestically.  

Nigeria, on the other hand, keeps tightening enforcement against illegal solid mineral mining to regulate resource development.  

If we look at these events together, we can see that they are not isolated incidents, but collectively reflect a trend.  

Resource sovereignty is gradually evolving from a political concept into concrete policies.

At the same time, international capital is also speeding up its presence.  

  

The U.S. keeps pushing to reorganize key mineral supply chains, hoping to reduce dependence on a single source; the EU is strengthening its security of strategic minerals through the Critical Raw Materials Act; and in recent years, Saudi Arabia has been continuously expanding its investments in African mining, hoping to leverage its financial advantage to enter the global new energy industry chain.  

As more and more countries turn their attention to Africa, resource-rich countries naturally gain more bargaining power.  

  

If the whole world needs my resources, why can't I fight for more benefits?  

This is exactly the underlying logic behind the policy adjustments in many African countries today.

  

Many domestic companies might worry when they see this: Will it become harder for Chinese companies to operate in Africa in the future?

My judgment is actually the opposite.

What's really changing isn’t whether Africa welcomes foreign investment, but what kind of investment it welcomes.

In the past, some projects focused more on resource extraction itself; nowadays, more and more countries are paying attention to whether the investment can boost local industries, create jobs, train talent, and promote technology transfer.

  

In other words, the future competition won’t just be about financial strength, but about overall capability.

Whoever can help build local industrial chains will have a much easier time gaining long-term growth opportunities.

Of course, there's no need for us to interpret this trend too radically.  

  

Africa isn’t a single, unified market.  

54 countries mean 54 legal systems, 54 sets of industrial policies, different levels of development, and varying capacities for execution.  

From policy proposal to actual implementation, there’s often a long period of adjustment in between.  

Some countries move faster, while others may progress more slowly due to financial, political, or infrastructure-related factors.  

So, rather than simply saying 'Africa has changed,' it’s more accurate to say Africa is in the process of changing.  

  

The speed varies, and the paths won’t be exactly the same.

For Chinese companies preparing to enter the African mining sector, I think what really needs adjusting isn’t their investment enthusiasm, but their investment mindset.

If you’re still stuck in the mindset of 'get resources, transport resources, sell resources,' the policy costs you face in the future could get higher and higher.

But if you can align resource development with processing, logistics, energy support, equipment manufacturing, and talent training, that actually aligns better with the future development direction of many resource-rich countries.

  

In the past, what determined a company’s competitiveness might have been who got the mining rights.

In the future, a more important question might become:

  

Who can participate in the entire industry chain?

Over the past few years, I’ve met quite a few Chinese companies visiting Africa. Many bosses’ favorite questions are: 'Where are the best mines?' or 'Which country has the best policies?'

But increasingly, I feel neither of these questions is as important as a third one: What does this country want its resource industry to look like in the next five years?

Because what really determines a company’s long-term competitiveness is never the resources themselves, it’s the rules. Resources can discover new mining areas, and markets will keep changing. Only the rules truly determine how far a business can go.

AFNIS 2026 might not immediately change the global mining landscape, but it at least shows one thing: Africa is no longer content with being just a global resource supplier; it wants to participate in the resource value chain and even shape the rules.

For all Chinese companies focused on the African market, this doesn’t necessarily mean fewer opportunities.

What really changes are the opportunities themselves—they belong to those who better understand Africa and are willing to invest long-term there.

Perhaps this is the real significance of this summit worth paying attention to.