Critical Minerals, Just Transitions, and the Right to Say No

By Charlize Tomaselli

The global energy transition is heralded as humanity’s pivot from destructive fossil fuels to renewable energy systems. Yet, beneath this supposed shift lies an uncomfortable truth: the extraction of critical minerals, indispensable for technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles, is rapidly escalating and replicating the same extractive and exploitative practices of fossil fuel energy production. This rush for resources raises urgent questions about whose lands, livelihoods, and ecosystems are sacrificed in the name of a green future.

The term “green extractivism” aptly captures the paradox of renewable energy development. While its stated aim is to mitigate climate change, the processes underpinning this development reproduce colonial patterns of resource exploitation. My work builds on critiques of this phenomenon by emphasizing how extractive industries often operate with limited regard for the voices and rights of local communities and the environment.

My job and PhD research are deeply interconnected in a reciprocal and collaborative process. As a senior researcher at the Alternative Information and Development Centre (AIDC) in Cape Town, I explore the complex nexus of critical minerals, green extractivism, and justice in the just transition, with a strong focus on human and environmental rights. This research has culminated in a recently published report; The Controversy of Green Energy: Uncovering Southern Africa’s Critical Mineral Sacrifice Zones. This report is the result of a comprehensive study on the intersection of global ambitions for renewable energy, the extractive practices that sustain them, and the social and environmental costs borne disproportionately by local communities in the Global South—particularly in southern Africa. It covers six southern African countries deeply impacted by critical mineral extraction: cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), nickel in Madagascar, graphite in Mozambique, manganese in South Africa, copper in Zambia and lithium in Zimbabwe.

The report findings highlight the widespread social, environmental, and economic injustices including human rights violations and exploitation, environmental and health impacts, economic marginalization and unfulfilled corporate social responsibility (CSR) promises. Community responses and resistance are also detailed, including the Right to Say No, stronger environmental and labour protections and alternative economic models, such as community-based ownership of mines and reinvestment of profits into local development. Legal and political obstacles that often hinder these efforts are discussed, focusing on the impunity of transnational corporations supported by neoliberal government agendas, in some cases leading to militarization and repression.

While the report does not oppose all mining, it critiques the systemic failures that enable corporate impunity and environmental destruction. Urgent reforms are needed to strengthen governance, enforce accountability, and protect the rights of communities affected by mining. Without these changes, the transition to a “green economy” risks replicating the extractivist injustices of the past.

My PhD research, part of the SARChI Chair Social and Environmental Dimensions of the Bio-economy, based at UCT, is deeply interconnected with my work, focusing on the differing responses of South African communities living on the frontlines of mineral extractivism. Some communities outright reject mining, while others consent under specific conditions. At the core of my research is the need to move beyond performative inclusion toward genuine community agency, as envisioned in the People-Centred Development paradigm.

Across southern Africa, mining-affected communities are increasingly asserting their Right to Say No—not as a symbolic gesture, but as a legal and moral entitlement. My work explores how formally recognizing and institutionalizing this right could disrupt the structural inequalities embedded in global resource extraction. However, rejecting mining is not simply about opposition; it also raises the question: if communities say no, what are they saying yes to?

I am particularly interested in understanding the alternatives communities envision when they resist mining and how these alternatives are shaped by historical, cultural, and socio-political dynamics. To explore this, I have chosen three case study communities, each with distinct responses to mining and different conceptions of the futures they seek to build. My research will examine the perspectives, rationales, and capacities of these communities, focusing on their engagement with the Right to Say No debate—and the affirmative visions they put forward. These case studies are The Amadiba Crisis Committee in Xolobeni, Eastern Cape, The Entebeni Crisis Forum in Melmoth, KwaZulu-Natal and MACUA (Mining Affected Communities United in Action) in Kuruman, Northern Cape

Through this research, I aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of community agency in resource governance, the structural barriers to meaningful participation, and the ways in which mining-affected communities are shaping alternative development pathways.