UN Backs Six Countries to Build Mineral Industries

The United Nations has chosen six countries for dedicated help in capturing more value from the minerals behind clean energy. Secretary-General António Guterres announced the Country Support Mechanism on Critical Energy Transition Minerals in New York on 23 September. Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Zambia and Zimbabwe are its first partners. 

The UN expects demand for critical minerals to almost triple by 2030. This sharpens an old question for producers. Can mineral processing at home create jobs and industry, or will most of the value keep leaving with raw exports?

What the Mechanism Will and Will Not Do

The UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN Development Coordination Office lead the mechanism. Working through UN resident offices, they will identify each country’s needs and offer tailored assistance. The stated priorities are governance, value addition, industrial development, and environmental and human safeguards. 

The mechanism sits within a task force co-led by UNDP, UNCTAD and UNEP. It also follows the principles of the Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals. The support is technical and capacity-building. 

Please note that the UN has not promised to finance, build or operate processing plants, and no funding amount was specified. It described the six as having “diverse mineral profiles and development contexts” but published no detailed selection criteria. Outcomes remain to be demonstrated.

Beyond Raw Exports

Value addition runs from extraction through refining and intermediate materials to downstream manufacturing. The six countries start from very different places.

Zambia, Africa’s second-largest copper producer, targets 3 million tonnes a year by 2031. Yet it has extended a concentrate export-duty waiver because smelter disruptions left miners holding unprocessed output. Zimbabwe plans to ban lithium concentrate exports from January 2027. However, a market analysis CSR Reporters accessed found its only operating lithium sulphate plant had no spare capacity for other miners.

Guinea, one of the largest bauxite producers, requires producers to commit to alumina refinery plans. It has moved against non-compliant licence holders. Madagascar hosts the Ambatovy nickel and cobalt refinery, but most graphite leaves with little processing.

Indonesia offers a cautionary comparison. Its nickel ore export ban helped lift export values from $4 billion in 2017 to $34 billion in 2022. However, the smelting boom is linked to coal-fired power and serious health costs. Indonesia’s scale differs from African producers, so lessons need care.

Nigeria’s Mineral Opportunity and Its Obstacles

Nigeria’s deposits are underdeveloped rather than absent, and commercial activity already exists. Government policy, as described by the solid minerals minister, requires processing before export. In July, authorities commissioned a lithium plant in Nasarawa State, reported to handle 6,000 tonnes of ore daily on about $250 million of investment. Minister Dele Alake says it validates the reform agenda.

A plant, however, is not a value chain. CSR Reporters Analysts cite inadequate geological data, low exploration funding and weak institutional capacity. Processing also needs steady electricity, which Nigeria’s power sector has long struggled to guarantee. 

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives estimated in October 2025 that illegal mining costs the country about $9 billion annually. UN expertise could help with regulation, formalisation and safeguards. It cannot, on its own, guarantee industrial expansion or measurable gains.

Banged on the Door, No One Answered: What Duty of Care Should Have Looked Like in NSCDC Custody

The Environmental and Social Price of Progress

Local processing does not automatically mean public benefit. Jobs offer the clearest example. Residents near a Kaduna lithium plant, inaugurated in 2024 that CSR Reporters spoke to, described unmet promises. Only a few local youths were working during a visit, mostly as security guards, against a projected 1,500 direct jobs. That is one documented case, not a verdict on the sector. It does show why employment pledges need verification.

Communities need consultation, grievance channels and enforceable benefit agreements. Guinea’s legally mandated local development fund and Madagascar’s 3% mining fund contribution are existing models. Their value depends on transparent payment and use. Governments should also separate treasury revenue from benefits that actually reach host communities.

Processing adds its own burdens: energy demand, water use, waste and emissions. Processors, investors and downstream buyers therefore share responsibility for tracing ore to licensed sources and managing supplier risks. 

Scrutiny is already building. More than 100 civil society organisations urged UN member states in July to support producer-country efforts built on the Panel’s principles. Credible ESG reporting should therefore publish baselines and results, not pledges. Useful indicators include:

• local employment and skills outcomes
• worker injury rates
• local supplier spending
• disclosed mining revenues
• environmental compliance
• consultation and grievance records
• rehabilitation progress

Mineral Wealth Must Deliver Lasting Value

The mechanism is a promise of expertise, not yet a record of results. Its worth will show in factories that keep running, workers who stay safe and skilled. It will also show in communities that can see where the money went. 

Governments, companies, investors and development partners all hold part of that responsibility. If the energy transition is to be fair, the places supplying its minerals must be able to measure what they gain, and what they lose.