By Tarisai Placedes Mugunyani, Head of Mining Programme, Centre for Environmental Rights
Critical mineral mining is heralded as a bold new step into mining and growing the South African economy. South Africa is positioning itself as an Innovation and Critical Minerals Leader on the Continent. The emphasis is placed on beneficiation, infrastructure readiness and the fact that the country is a hub for high value processing and continental collaboration.
One must ask, since critical minerals is the new Kid on the block, what is fact and myth?
What are critical minerals?
Critical minerals are natural resources, typically metals or non‑metallic elements whose supply is deemed essential for the economic and technological security of a country, but whose availability is at risk because of geological scarcity, concentrated production, geopolitical tension, or limited substitutes. They underpin key sectors such as renewable energy, electric‑vehicle batteries, telecommunications, aerospace, and defense.
What is the legal framework governing critical minerals in South Africa?
South Africa’s critical‑minerals sector is regulated primarily by the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA) 2002, which establishes the state’s custodial role over mineral resources and requires mining rights to be granted only when they serve national development goals. The Mining Charter 2023 and the National Development Plan (NDP 2030) have embedded requirements for beneficiation, local procurement, and socio‑economic transformation.
South Africa’s critical‑minerals policy is anchored in the Critical Minerals and Metals Strategy (CMMSSA), approved by Cabinet in May 2025, and the accompanying Mineral Resources Development Bill (MRDB) 2025 that is proposing amendments to the mining legislation, namely the MPRDA. The strategy states that its aim is to develop a domestic supply chain for transition‑critical minerals while confronting a set of intertwined social and environmental challenges. It further acknowledges that South Africa’s value chain remains upstream, exporting most minerals raw, limited downstream beneficiation. This raises serious concern, as communities that host mining operations — and communities in general — ought to experience the benefits of mining, yet have historically been left to shoulder its socio‑economic and environmental burdens.
A primary issue is the failure of legally required Social and Labour Plans (SLPs), in which companies promise community development projects. In a report on 11 mining companies by Mine Affected Communities United in Action (MACUA) titled “Crumbs Capture: When Even the Scraps Are Stolen”, it was found that of R376 million committed to community projects, R284 million was unaccounted for, misused, or spent on “ghost projects”. It is clear that this failure is enabled by weak enforcement from the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources and a legal framework that lacks meaningful standards for implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. Given that Critical Minerals is “just mining,” what will be different of benefit to communities?
What are the gaps we are not told about?
Communities view critical‑minerals projects with skepticism and concern. Mining is seen as a source of environmental damage that can pollute water, degrade land, and increase carbon emissions, threatening health, and livelihoods. Many fear displacement and injustice because projects often proceed without free, prior, and informed consent leading to forced relocations, land disputes and insufficient compensation.
Economic exclusion is another major worry for communities; the “resource curse” pattern of exporting raw minerals without local processing limits job creation and deepens inequality, leaving elites to benefit while local labour is exploited. Persistent policy gaps, weak enforcement, unregulated artisanal mining, health hazards and mineral smuggling further erode trust in the mining sector. Consequently, we call for stronger environmental safeguards, community‑centered governance and accelerated beneficiation that creates local value and jobs, as well as financing criteria tied to just‑transition outcomes.
South Africa’s push into critical minerals presents a crucial opportunity to remedy the mistakes of the past. Should an overhaul of the legal framework not produce better safeguards it risks repeating a dark history of extraction that enriches a few while exploiting many. To avoid this “resource curse,” protecting community interests must be central to the nation’s strategy and legislative regime. Currently, mining projects threaten clean water, degrade land, and increase carbon emissions. Communities face displacement without free, prior, and informed consent, as seen with grave removals at the Mogalakwena platinum mine. This injustice is compounded by an economic model that exports raw minerals, forfeiting local jobs and value-added opportunities.
Policy alone is not enough; the new Critical Minerals Strategy requires strong enforcement and a clear focus on community-centered governance. Financial institutions must shift from funding purely extractive projects to backing those with built-in requirements for local procurement and community benefits. True progress means implementing stronger environmental safeguards and ensuring that the wealth generated from the ground benefits the people who live on it. A just transition depends on it.
