Mozambique is sitting on mineral wealth that could help power the world’s green transition – but without a clear plan, that opportunity could quickly turn into a lost decade. And this is the part most people miss: it’s not just about having resources underground, it’s about having the rules, institutions, and vision to manage them wisely.
Mozambican civil society organisations have sounded the alarm, urging the government to urgently design a national strategy for critical minerals, along with a modern legal framework tailored to this new reality. They argue that, despite Mozambique’s rising profile as a major graphite producer for the global energy transition, the country still operates without specific laws and policies for these strategic resources. In simple terms, Mozambique is already on the map for critical minerals, but is navigating that space without a detailed roadmap.
At a National Conference on Critical Minerals held in Maputo, Osman Cossing, programme coordinator at the Institute for Multiparty Democracy (IMD), stressed that Mozambique needs a comprehensive national strategy focused on critical and strategic minerals, supported by updated, inclusive and balanced legislation. According to him, such a framework should do three things at once: protect national sovereignty, attract responsible investors, and maximise both social and economic benefits for the population. Think of it as setting the “rules of the game” so that every mining project clearly benefits the country, rather than just extracting value for foreign companies.
Cossing underlined that Mozambique holds resources of high international importance but is still moving forward without a unifying strategic vision to guide how these resources are explored and used. Without a strategy, it becomes harder to direct investments to priority areas, guarantee traceability of minerals from the mine to the final buyer, or secure a solid position in global supply chains for green technologies. For example, if buyers in Europe or Asia increasingly demand proof that minerals are produced responsibly, Mozambique could struggle to compete without clear traceability standards built into its laws.
One of the most striking data points shared at the conference is that Mozambique produces around 75,000 tonnes of graphite per year, a key component in batteries for electric vehicles. In addition, the country has confirmed deposits of other highly sought‑after minerals such as lithium, tantalum, niobium and titanium in provinces including Cabo Delgado, Nampula, Zambézia and Manica. For beginners, it may help to think of these minerals as some of the “building blocks” of clean energy technologies, advanced electronics and modern infrastructure. But here’s where it gets controversial: with so much potential on the table, why hasn’t a dedicated national strategy already been adopted?
Despite this strong geological potential, Cossing pointed out that Mozambique still lacks a specific policy and regulatory framework capable of converting these resources into maximum local value and long‑term sustainable investment. That means the country risks remaining mainly an exporter of raw materials, capturing only a small slice of the value chain instead of fostering local processing, job creation, and technology transfer. A more ambitious approach could, for example, encourage the development of local battery‑related industries or mineral processing plants, rather than exporting everything unprocessed.
Cossing also highlighted that the current legislation – notably the mining law and the petroleum law – was designed in a period when hydrocarbons such as oil and gas were the central focus. These laws, he argued, no longer fully address new global demands related to traceability, environmental and social sustainability, decarbonisation goals, and the fair balancing of interests in an increasingly competitive market. In practical terms, regulations built for oil and gas might not be flexible or detailed enough to govern 21st‑century critical minerals, where international buyers require strict environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards.
From the IMD’s perspective, the current political context in Mozambique actually offers a window of opportunity. The country is engaged in an inclusive national dialogue and is revising a range of laws linked to natural resources. This moment, they argue, is ideal for weaving the critical minerals agenda into broader legal and policy reforms, rather than treating it as an afterthought. If done well, reforms could connect issues such as community rights, environmental protection, revenue management and industrial policy into one coherent framework around critical minerals.
Edson Matches, president of the Mozambique Chamber of Mines, also spoke at the conference, which focused heavily on legal reforms in the mining sector. He emphasised that critical minerals are not only central to the energy transition, but also to technological innovation, defence capabilities and even food security. For instance, certain minerals are vital for fertiliser production or for technologies that protect crops, linking mining policy directly to agriculture and livelihoods. This broader framing – tying minerals to national security and food systems – could spark debate about how much control the state should exert over these strategic resources.
Matches noted that the proposals on the table at the conference are in line with ongoing reform efforts at the Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy. The expectation is that these initiatives will help strengthen both the management and oversight of mining activities across the country. Better regulation and oversight can increase transparency, reduce illegal mining and ensure that contracts, environmental obligations and community agreements are properly monitored instead of remaining just “paper promises.”
He explained that the main objective of the conference is to foster collective reflection on how mining is conducted and to reinforce the rule of law in the sector. This includes improving control over mineral extraction, boosting transparency in how decisions are made and revenues are managed, and ensuring that resources directly benefit Mozambicans in general and local communities in particular. In practice, that could mean clearer benefit‑sharing mechanisms with communities, public disclosure of contracts, and stronger penalties for companies that fail to respect environmental or social commitments.
Academic and conference speaker António Niquice warned that growing global demand for critical minerals places Mozambique in a privileged yet vulnerable position at the same time. On one hand, the country can become an indispensable supplier to major economies seeking to decarbonise; on the other, this attention can intensify pressures that expose weaknesses in institutions and governance. A country rich in resources but with fragile institutions can quickly find itself facing disputes over land, social unrest around mining projects, or opaque deals that favour a few at the expense of many.
Niquice stressed that the abundance of natural resources can be a powerful engine for generating wealth, but it can also fuel conflicts, corruption and institutional erosion if not properly managed. That is why he strongly advocated the creation of robust oversight mechanisms and resilient public institutions capable of enforcing rules and ensuring accountability. This echoes global discussions about the “resource curse”: should a rich mineral endowment be seen as a blessing, or can it become a curse when governance is weak?
The conference itself was organised by Mozambican civil society organisations in partnership with international actors, bringing together a broad spectrum of stakeholders: members of parliament, provincial assemblies, government representatives, private sector leaders, researchers and academics, and community‑based organisations. This inclusive format is intended to ensure that decisions about critical minerals are not made solely behind closed doors, but incorporate perspectives from those living near the mines and those responsible for drafting and applying the laws. When diverse groups meet, tensions often surface – but so do creative solutions.
The overarching aim of the gathering is to help shape a coherent national framework for the research, exploration and commercialisation of critical minerals in Mozambique. That framework is expected to prioritise turning mineral wealth into real economic development, while guaranteeing tangible, direct benefits for local communities living in resource‑rich areas. In other words, the goal is to prevent a scenario where minerals leave the country in large quantities while local people see little improvement in public services, jobs or infrastructure.
But here’s where it gets controversial: should Mozambique move quickly to attract as much investment as possible while demand is high, or should it slow down, tighten its rules, and risk losing some investors in order to protect communities and the environment? And this is the part most people miss: decisions taken now about contracts, laws and institutions could define who truly benefits from these resources for decades to come.
So, what do you think? Should Mozambique prioritise rapid growth even if it means accepting tougher social and environmental trade‑offs, or should it insist on stricter conditions and stronger local value‑addition, even if that scares away some investors? Where do you stand on this – and do you believe critical minerals should be treated more like a public good under strong state control, or as a global commodity where market forces should lead the way?
