Critical Minerals Are Splitting Africa’s Mining Story in Two

Two numbers from the same continent tell the whole story. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, exports to China have climbed from roughly 16% to 25% of GDP in just five years. In South Africa, iron ore prices are projected to slide from US$100 per tonne in 2025 to US$70 by 2028.

The occasion for examining that gap is a September 2026 report from the Atlantic Council, which frames China as an economic partner to Africa under growing strain. The real subject, though, is more structural: a reordering of African mining in which the commodity you dig out of the ground now decides which side of the global energy transition you land on.

This is not a passing market wobble. It is a decade-long realignment driven by China’s clean energy buildout on one side and its construction slowdown on the other. What follows here maps that fault line so you can place any African mining position, or any portfolio with continental exposure, on the correct side of it.

Africa’s mining story is splitting in two

The Atlantic Council’s September 2026 assessment reads less like a diplomatic scorecard and more like a lens on divergence. Beijing has worked to present itself as a dependable buyer of African output, but widening trade imbalances are pulling that image apart, and the split is visible directly in the export data.

The Atlantic Council’s September 2026 assessment frames China’s slowing industrial economy as a structural force reshaping African trade relationships, with the divergence between energy-transition commodity exporters and bulk industrial commodity exporters emerging as its central finding.

Look at what each country sells. The DRC ships copper and cobalt, the metals the energy transition cannot function without. South Africa ships iron ore and chromium, the bulk materials that build roads, towers, and railways. That single difference is now compounding into radically different economic trajectories.

• DRC export profile: concentrated in energy-transition metals (copper, cobalt); minimal competitive overlap with Chinese exports; fortunes coupled to clean energy demand.
• South Africa export profile: weighted toward bulk industrial commodities (iron ore, chromium); heavy overlap with China’s own manufactured export portfolio; fortunes tied to construction-sector demand that is now shrinking.

Both sides of this split trace back to one cause: China’s economy is buying more of what powers the energy transition and less of what builds cities. The same country driving DRC copper demand is the country whose steel appetite is fading.

Chinese processing control across cobalt, lithium, and rare earths means the commodity leverage map extends beyond mine ownership: even where African sovereigns or Western miners hold extraction rights, value capture at the refining stage remains concentrated in Chinese state-linked entities.

The pressure runs deeper than commodities. Chinese exports to Africa surged 26% in 2025, led by vehicles, machinery, and electronics, pushing the continent’s manufactured-goods trade deficit to roughly 11% of GDP.

Standard Bank, ISS Africa, and Moody’s have warned that without stronger industrial strategy and improved competitiveness, Africa risks becoming a “dumping ground” for China’s surplus output.

Here is the read for an investor: the DRC’s move from 16% to 25% of GDP in China-bound exports is not a trade footnote. It signals that the DRC’s economy is now structurally bolted to China’s energy transition timeline, which hands it asymmetric upside for as long as the clean energy buildout accelerates. Treating “Africa exposure” as one thematic bet no longer works, because the category has stopped cohering.

Why copper and cobalt are outrunning iron ore and chromium

The valuation gap between these two commodity groups is not sentiment. It emerges from the demand mechanics, and the pricing data shows it before any argument needs to be made.

Start with the forward modelling. Under the IMF’s net-zero emissions scenario, real prices for cobalt, lithium, and nickel could rise by several hundred percent from 2020 levels, while copper could climb by more than 60%. Oil, by contrast, faces a permanent 20% real price decline in the same framework.

Energy storage metals demand is the proximate driver beneath the IMF’s long-run copper and cobalt price modelling: the battery capacity required to absorb variable renewable generation at projected 2030-2035 grid penetration rates implies a sustained, decade-long call on the specific metals the DRC produces in concentration.

The IMF treats the energy transition as a permanent 20% fall in real oil prices paired with a permanent 20% rise in real copper prices, the clearest long-run signal available on where structural demand is heading.

Now the other end of the periodic table. Global steel excess capacity sat at roughly 640 million tonnes in 2025 and is projected by the OECD to reach 745 million tonnes by 2028, with China accounting for about 54% of that capacity-demand gap. Chinese steel demand is forecast to contract by around 0.6% in 2026.

That feeds directly into pricing. BMI (Fitch Solutions) cut its 2026 average iron ore forecast to US$99 per tonne, and OECD-linked outlooks map the decline from US$100 in 2025 to US$90 in 2026 and US$70 by 2028.

The mechanism matters most for steel. Decarbonising steel means more scrap, more electric-arc furnaces, and more direct-reduced iron, all of which cut virgin iron ore and chromium demand structurally rather than cyclically.

The read you should take is this: the slide from US$100 to US$70 over three years is not a correction that reverses on the next construction upturn. It reflects a demand shift away from the very commodity class that built South Africa’s mining industry. That distinction is decisive when you are assessing long-duration mining assets, because it tells you the same continent, in the same era, can produce opposite outcomes depending on which metals a miner holds.

The DRC’s leverage and its limits

The DRC’s mineral position is genuine structural power. The country sits on a commodity mix the energy transition needs and cannot easily replace, and that gives it real pricing leverage. The complication is who owns the machinery that extracts it.

Chinese state-owned firms and policy banks control roughly 80% of the DRC’s cobalt output. Broadly, Chinese entities hold stakes in 15 of the DRC’s 19 operating cobalt mines. That ownership concentration complicates any tidy story of the DRC holding leverage over China.

Cobalt supply chain concentration extends well beyond mine ownership: Chinese entities control the majority of global cobalt refining capacity, meaning even DRC output routed through non-Chinese miners typically passes through Chinese processing infrastructure before reaching battery manufacturers.

The country has still tried to press that leverage. After a cobalt export ban in February 2025, it moved to a quota regime under the Regulatory and Control Authority for Strategic Mineral Substances (ARECOMS, Decision No. 004/2025), setting 18,125 tonnes for Q4 2025 and 96,600 tonnes annually for 2026 and 2027, including a 10% strategic allocation.

The effect was immediate. Chinese cobalt imports fell from nearly 200,000 tonnes to roughly 5,000 tonnes in early 2026. That is pricing power on display, but it also carries backfire risk: squeeze buyers hard enough and they diversify supply chains away from you.

For anyone holding DRC exposure, three risk vectors sit alongside commodity prices and can move valuations on their own:

• Ownership concentration: Chinese control of most cobalt output limits sovereign pricing leverage in practice.
• Infrastructure counterparty risk: infrastructure-for-resources deals tie annual payments to copper prices, exposing the DRC if prices fall below US$8,000 per tonne.
• Buyer diversification: aggressive export controls may push customers to build supply lines elsewhere.

The cobalt gambit captures the dilemma exactly. The DRC has real pricing power over a metal the world needs, yet the infrastructure it uses to extract and export that metal is largely owned and financed by the very buyer it is trying to pressure.

What Zambia’s copper bust tells us about the DRC’s ceiling

In 2015-2016, a Chinese demand slowdown drove Zambian copper prices down 20-30%, triggering mine closures, a US$2.4 billion drop in export earnings, and a current-account deficit of about 3.5% of GDP. Weak governance turned a cyclical price shock into structural damage.

Africa holds a bigger buffer: over 50% of global cobalt reserves and firmer prices. But the same concentration risk and governance vulnerabilities are present at greater scale, which is precisely what makes position-level risk assessment non-negotiable for DRC exposure.

South Africa’s double squeeze and the limits of defensive trade policy

South Africa faces two pressures at once, and they compound rather than run in parallel. Its export mix overlaps with China’s export portfolio more than any other major African economy studied by Standard Bank, ISS, and Moody’s, while it depends on bulk commodities whose main buyer is reducing demand for the structural reasons already covered.

Rank the burdens and the compounding becomes clear:

1. Iron ore price decline: projected to fall to US$70 per tonne by 2028 as Chinese construction weakens.
2. Chromium demand reduction: structurally softening as steel decarbonisation favours scrap and electric-arc furnaces.
3. Manufactured goods import competition: cheap Chinese vehicles, machinery, and electronics undercutting domestic producers.

Pretoria’s response has been defensive and specific. The International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC Reports 759 and 767) imposed definitive anti-dumping duties, implemented by the South African Revenue Service (SARS) on 19 March 2026.

The overlap with China is real but not total: it runs at about half the level South Africa shares with developed economies such as the United States, Japan, and Germany, though it remains the highest among African peers.

Here is the tension the tariffs cannot resolve. Defensive duties raise input costs for downstream construction and manufacturing at exactly the moment those sectors need cheap inputs to compete, creating a feedback loop the measures themselves cannot break.

The read for an investor is blunt. These tariffs show institutional capacity to defend specific sectors, but they do not close the competitiveness gap. If you hold South African manufacturing or downstream steel exposure, price in continued margin compression rather than relief, and treat this as the difference between a short-term trade position and a structural call on the country’s industrial equities.

Where the divergence leads and what investors should watch

The DRC’s window is defined by a date. IMF modelling has cobalt demand peaking around 2035 before plateauing at high levels, which means exposure entered now sits inside roughly a decade of structurally supported demand. On long-duration assets, that terminal curve matters more than entry price, so exit timing becomes the decision that dominates the case.

Three forward variables will determine whether this divergence widens or narrows. Track them as a monitoring checklist:

1. Chinese clean energy capex: the pace of the buildout is the demand engine for DRC copper and cobalt. Accelerating spend widens the gap.
2. Copper price relative to US$8,000 per tonne: the floor that triggers DRC infrastructure-agreement counterparty risk. A sustained break below it changes the risk profile fast.
3. South African downstream value-add: whether the country builds processing capacity in platinum-group metals or green hydrogen before the tariff window closes. The research does not quantify this, so treat it as a strategic adjacency rather than a data-backed forecast.

Africa’s critical minerals strategy, as debated at the 2026 Mining Indaba forum, revolves around a core tension: how to translate mineral endowment into domestic processing capacity rather than raw-material export dependency, a transition that requires sovereign financing structures most African governments currently lack.

The IMF’s net-zero framing, a permanent 20% real rise in copper prices as the long-run direction, is the structural anchor beneath every DRC investment case here.

The framing to hold onto is not which country wins a static race. It is which commodity classes align with the next decade of global energy capital spending, and what concentration and governance risks travel with those positions.

This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Investors should conduct their own research and consult with financial professionals before making investment decisions. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Financial projections are subject to market conditions and various risk factors, and forward-looking statements are speculative and subject to change based on market developments.

Reading the fault line before the next commodity cycle

The DRC and South Africa are being sorted by commodity class, not by geography or governance alone, and the sorting mechanism is a decade-long shift in Chinese industrial demand. One country mines the metals of the energy transition; the other mines the materials of a construction boom that is fading.

That makes continental exposure without commodity-class specificity an incoherent frame. The relevant unit of analysis is now the specific metal and its demand driver, not the country or the region. The next cycle will be shaped by clean energy capital spending timelines, and African miners holding energy-transition metals are structurally better positioned for it than those holding bulk industrial materials, barring a governance failure or a reversal in Chinese demand.

—