FREDRICK OGENGA

A Varieties of Science Network Insight

Contextual Summary

Neoliberal peace touches on the very heart of society, positing that societies are more peaceful if they are democratic or, in other words, democracy is a prerequisite for peace. This view largely emerged after the end of the cold war, where democratic governance became broadly accepted as the central political framework for peacebuilding, with a central presumption that democracies are more peaceful both domestically and internationally[1]. The UN Agenda for Democratization and Agenda for Peace presume that,​ because ​​democratic ​​governance ​is​ freely chosen by the citizen and held accountable through periodic and genuine elections and other mechanisms, democratic societies are more likely to promote and respect the rule of law, individual and minority rights. These societies can cope effectively with social conflict, absorb migrant populations, and respond to the needs of marginalized groups[2]. It is this minimalist underpinning that lays premium on democratic institutions (democratic institutionalism) that is currently under threat. 

Democratic Institutionalism

Democratic institutionalism that allows for periodic elections through civic participation, respect for constitutionalism, the rule of law, human rights, and civil liberties, and enables individuals to voluntarily subscribe to the ideas of a federation (community), in a manner where they feel part and parcel of the system, as opposed to the Hobbesian “Man in the Bush” arrangement ​where​ conflict and survival for the fittest take center-stage, is being challenged in different regions globally, birthing terms such as democratic decay, democratic erosion, democratic backsliding among others. However, in an ideal democratic set-up, humans are supposed to be self-driven by their personal will to achieve peace as an end and not a means to an end (perpetual peace)[3]. ​​

Epistemic Diversities

Epistemic diversities inherent in the understanding of the idea of democracy and peace (democratic peacebuilding) in different contexts, and peace as a consequent prerequisite for democracy is of academic and therein scholarly concern. The Varieties of Science Network at KHK c:o/re at RWTH Aachen is a science diplomacy vehicle that examines such knowledge disparities in a bid to build epistemic cooperation, across cultures, around problem-oriented questions like nuclear proliferation against the background of a possibly emerging new cold war related to a three polar world order.

Pan African Realities

In this examination, Varieties of Science Network therefore recognizes the shortfalls of the minimalist contentions to peacebuilding and the romantic approach to liberal peacebuilding, juxtaposed against a Pan-African contextual reality. Liberal peacebuilding often emphasizes peaceful electoral power transitions through constitutionalism and respect for human rights, where civil societies are given a safe space, through limited political interference, for active participation in political processes leading to peaceful elections and democratic installations. ​​The downside of this is characterized by institutional failure, where critical institutions are invaded by personal greed and ambitions at the expense of the people, necessitating the need to go beyond the minimalist view by adopting a maximalist approach (an approach that is context specific, driven by local knowledge and nuances)[4]. The latter considers other historical and contextual variables that help midwife democratic transitions and consolidation through periodic elections, found in Pan-African traditions and “the local turn”[5] such as mediation, bipartisan talks, dialogue, power sharing, Government of National Unity and Broad-Based Government characterized by the universality of the African philosophy of Ubuntu (humanity). When this happens, then the conversation moves to critical post-colonial questions of inclusivity (especially economic inclusivity), addressing marginalization, ethnicity, and questions of representation, citizenship, and belonging.  

The thinking behind a Pan-African theoretical approach in this discourse, as constitutive of global epistemic cosmopolitanism, is to transform both research and practice of international peacebuilding, with the aim of disrupting the traditional flow of knowledge and information (as levers in global coloniality of power) from the Global North to South through media technologies, by foregrounding views, experiences, and practices from the Global South in global policy discussions. This will help overcome the predominance of North-Western concepts and templates in the practice and scholarship of international peace operations[6]. Overcoming predominance of Western concept should be a major strategy of prioritizing local efforts (regional perspectives), processes, and solutions in peacebuilding efforts, as opposed to liberal peacebuilding approaches that uncontestably celebrate conventional manifestations of liberal democracy but fail to influence political decisions of Western leaders in questions of global peace and security when it really matters, leading to a crisis of peacebuilding.  

The Crisis of Liberal Peacebuilding

We are facing a crisis of liberal peacebuilding as it is currently threatened by the emergence of illiberalism and populist authoritarian regimes[7] (age of the strongman) in Africa and elsewhere. The latter pokes holes into Fukuyama’s “The End of History Paper”[8] that claimed that Western liberal democracy is the final form of human governance, relying on the Democratic Peace Theory, which states that most democratic countries are reluctant to engage in armed conflict with another republic or democratic country, motivated by keeping the peace. This notion was largely sustained by the United Nations paradigm that lasted for over seventy years, but later changed due to growing pessimism of a peaceful world brought about by events such as the 9/11 terrorist attack in the United States, making the US more rigid and absolute in its foreign policy and domestic affairs[9].   

This liberal, democratic turnaround led to the intellectual crisis of Western rationalism. Liberal democracy lacked proper mechanisms to defend itself as a governing mechanism[10]. Sensing this shift, politicians around the world began to turn to nationalism and populism as an alternative to democracy, as witnessed in the America First policy and Make America Great Again (MAGA movement) under Donald Trump[11]. Today, liberal democracy is being challenged on more or less all fronts by strongmen who seek a more controlled, nationalistic governance from Europe, North America and Africa[12]. This could explain the recent governance problems that have sparked protests in countries like Kenya and Tanzania, and a wave of electoral conflicts in many countries in Africa agitating for more rights through mass protests, especially around civil liberties and electoral justice. It also underscores the celebration of military takeover of government, as witnessed in West Africa (Alliance of Sahel States). These developments demand scholarly attention.

In recent years, vibrant bodies of African scholarship have emerged examining the application of democratic governance and peacebuilding in African contexts. The proliferation of courses at African universities, academic journals, conferences, and research institutes dedicated to conflict and peacebuilding in Africa[13], over the past two decades, has led to a growing number of African scholars of peace and conflict who have pointed to the shortcomings of Western-led liberal peacebuilding approaches. The imposition of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to peace, disconnected from local cultures, traditions, and social structures, has proven to not only be unsustainable in building peace, but can exacerbate tensions and future conflict[14].

African scholars of peacebuilding have called for more contextualized and localized approaches to peacebuilding, with some highlighting the need to amplify and mainstream indigenous African approaches to peacebuilding, such as open assembly, oath, covenant making, and the use of traditional councils involving elders and clan leaders[15]. Despite the rich literature on peacebuilding advanced by African scholars, African scholars have not offered anything qualitatively different from their counterparts elsewhere, noting that most African scholars of peacebuilding had been educated according to Western academic scholarship traditions[16]. Yet, a survey of the literature has found renewed investigations into indigenous governance and peacebuilding mechanisms, with a view to mainstream them into peacebuilding practices across the continent[17].

Ubuntu and the Future of Peace

These calls are situated within the broader movement of decolonization, of decentralizing Western approaches in favor of indigenous traditions, with some scholars highlighting that the roots of many conflicts in the African continent can be found in colonial legacies of violence, exploitation, and political and social divisions[18]. The need to return to African traditional religions to identify contextually appropriate governance and peacebuilding mechanisms speaks to the unifying power of concepts like Ubuntu in advancing African-led discourses on peacebuilding and governance[19].

Ubuntu: a value system that emphasizes the capacity for compassion, which can be described as a pervasive sense of caring and community, harmony and hospitality, respect and responsiveness, displayed by individuals and communities towards one another. In this case, Ubuntu signifies spiritualism, empathy, love, community, collaboration, respect, humanism, and humaneness in global relations. As an indigenous philosophical perspective of African people that connotes and symbolizes human beings’ communal obligation to share life for the common good (Peace), it is at the core of epistemic cooperation across cultures to escape essentialism inherent in North South scientific positionalities in philosophical orientations in knowledge production in the digital age (digital divide, data poverty, digital coloniality, digital repression, etc.) by depoliticizing, humanizing, and giving fluidity to epistemologies through the universality of mankind (humanity). Therefore, the African perspective, emphasized in this discourse, brings to the fore local infrastructures for peace in imagining the future of peace and peacemakers today.

Noting the gap between the current dominant African literature on peacebuilding, which is still rooted in Western norms, and yet simultaneously fails to influence Western policy, and the need to further conduct research to guide the implementation and mainstreaming of indigenous approaches to peacebuilding, African scholars ought to lead knowledge production efforts on indigenous approaches, in partnership with communities from Africa and beyond[20]. As a central discourse to the decolonial African perspective, African scholars equally need to work closely with African policymakers, in partnership with “others”, to support knowledge production forums such as seminars, workshops, and conferences to ensure research is translated into practice[21] to (re-)calibrate the respective views on peace and the order of peace in multiple countries and regions.

Clearly, the trouble with peacemaking today implies that neoliberal peace is in crisis. This crisis is embodied in the emerging new cold war, where major powers are exercising strategic geopolitical military posturing across different regions globally, with interesting implications for the future of global peace. But the theater of this spectacle is dramatized in the ongoing war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, the war in Sudan, and the push for Iran’s nuclear disarmament. On the periphery of these matrices lies the emerging role of African states within the broader liberation, solidarity, consciousness, and anti-neo imperialism stance in politics and governance. Central to the latter is a paradigm shift in the exploitation of Africa’s critical minerals and the centrality of critical minerals in the global energy transition, that has since ignited fears of Africa becoming another familiar “green colony” of Western imperialism owing to the surge of renewed interest by global powers driven by its vast resources.

Consequently, questions of Africa’s urgency are of critical importance to the ensuing decolonial approach to knowledge production for redesigning the global critical mineral supply chain architecture. Since minerals like copper, lithium, cobalt, coltan, manganese, aluminum, and rare earths are essential in the green industrial revolution, powering technology including AI, and space technology for security and defense, it is essential to imagine the future of peace today and redefine, from an African (decolonial) perspective, the role of “the Peacemaker” and what constitutes peacemaking today, given the emerging new cold war and the politics of new-old powers spheres of influence. This necessitates the re-assessment of the crisis of neoliberal peace, embodied through instruments such as nuclear disarmament programs, doctrines and new start treaties as well as strategic military alignments and bilateral trade deals to influence and control the global supply chains of critical minerals (largely from Africa), as the energy question becomes central in powering the next generation defense and deterrence capabilities. 

Africa’s Critical Mineral: A Zone of Interference between Empires

Scholarly literature reveals a considerable focus on the hidden economic potential of critical minerals in Africa, a reality brought about by developmental deficits and value chain challenges, as well as natural resource governance and environmental fragility, affecting the well-being of mining regions[22]. The latter raises questions about best practices for resource benefit sharing, environmental protection, and development for and with indigenous communities, as well as the conflict dynamics that arise from these efforts. Therefore, there are two interrelated, central concerns. First, the increasing need to secure clean energy supply chains and build capacity to prevent profit shifting by large companies to use extractive revenues for sustainable development and the salience of natural resource governance to confront supply chain challenges/obstacles, restore/protect the environment, which is the key to reducing fragility and preventing conflict.

These discussions would inform interventions that ensure green manufacturing and competitiveness in African mining and mineral processing industries, promoting sustainable development. Nevertheless, given the prevailing global (epistemic) power relations, these discussions must be extraordinary, leading to a far-reaching philosophical reset of the foundational architecture of the critical mineral extraction political economy, which cannot be divorced from colonial and neo-colonial legacies regarding the idea of Africa and its new scramble therein. The global scramble toward renewable energy and technological sustainability has reignited renewed interest in critical minerals. Lithium, cobalt, nickel, and rare earth elements have become the new lifeblood of the 21st century, in similar, if not greater, proportions to what oil and gold were in the 20th century. This has engineered and geared innovations such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, and solar panels. Yet, the so-called clean energy revolution (just energy transition) threatens to repeat the same old story of extraction and exploitation that the Global South, in general, and Africa, in particular, know all too well[23]. Beneath the gleaming rhetoric of sustainability lies a deep continuity of coloniality — a persistence of structures that privilege Western capital and expertise while relegating Africa and the Global South to the role of suppliers of raw materials, rarely of finished products or transformative value.

Epistemic Cooperation through Local Research on Green Energy

A good example of a just energy transition is found in cooperation between Germany and Africa on green hydrogen[24] in the context of the H2Atlas-Africa project[25]. Because green hydrogen promises to be critical in achieving a sustainable and renewable energy transition, there are cooperative visions to rapidly build hydrogen facilities in Africa and export the produced green hydrogen to Europe. However, there is one foreseen problem where these visions would potentially conflict with the visions of actors within Africa, further inciting an initial assessment through local epistemic research of African stakeholders’ visions for future energy exports and renewable energy expectations. Consequently, a comparison of visions from Germany and Africa was conducted and assessed to identify differences in green energy and hydrogen visions that could lead to conflict and similarities that could be the basis for cooperation.

Germany already clarifies that it needs to meet its green hydrogen transition targets through imports in its National Hydrogen Strategy, while Africa directly needs investment in green energy infrastructure and capacity (expertise). Therefore, a partnership between Germany and Africa is a win-win scenario that started off with German and African researchers assessing the green hydrogen potential in Africa by examining the African vision, through exploring and surveying views from partners from different African countries working on the project. It was then established that “while both sides see the need for an immediate transition to renewable energy, the African side is not envisioning the immediate export of green hydrogen”[26] which exposes the need for partners to, first and foremost, “improve the continent’s still deficient energy access for both the population and industry”[27].

Critical Mineral New Scramble Threatens Global Peace

However, of greater concern is how critical minerals have exposed the soft underbelly of global peace. Therefore, a critical mineral exploration framework and energy transition that undermines the value of cooperation is therefore likely to fail due to the misalignment of visions and interests. This is more of the reason why the new scramble for mineral extraction is hidden under the veil of national security strategic interests, where old-new powers redefine maps and spheres of influence, presumably led by dictatorial ambitions as witnessed in Russia’s war on Ukraine, Chinese claims on Taiwan, and America’s military invasion of Venezuela and threats of acquiring Greenland should concern all of us. The leadership of these countries is considered an obstacle in the illegal, free exploitation of critical minerals and natural resources. Geographically speaking, empires are reorganizing themselves to strategically exploit and control critical minerals supply chains, with little to do with democracy, liberty and national security threats. Africa, by virtue of its vast natural resources, remains in the new-old power radar and, therefore, right at the core of this concern. Technically speaking, Africa is in a more strategic position to unite and speak in one voice in terms of alternative approaches to mineral exploitation for the sake of global peace and security. Since these emerging relations (between global powers in sphere of influence) are indications of the kinds of conflicts likely to emerge in Africa, they should be used as a means of projecting the likely peace measures and epistemic research cooperation that should be put in place. Africa, in this context, is a zone of interference between empires and their ambitions, presenting the world with a rare, yet powerful, opportunity to think about the future of peace emerging from its critical mineral wealth and the restructuring of the global critical mineral supply chain architecture from, pit to pot.

Africa’s Sphere of Influence must be about Global Peace Agenda

Therefore, it is important to underscore the role of Africa in these emerging three polar world order, which must be approached with caution as empires reorganize themselves around spheres of influence motivated by critical minerals. For Africa, it should not be business as usual, since, as critical minerals become the building block of influence and strategic expansion for empires, Africa should consolidate its strength through using critical minerals as a bargaining chip and a decisive space where these emerging hybrid forms of power relations can be dislocated for a better imagination of global peace. This seems to be a difficult aspiration for Africa, due to fragmentation and weak institutional capacity to operate as a single actor. However, this is where decolonial approaches matter, as a unifying glue and for the invocation of the Pan African spirit or philosophy of Ubuntu. The reorganization of empires and threats targeting African nations, such as those directed to countries like Nigeria and South Africa (African giants), grant Africa another rare opportunity for renewing its historicity and call for justice, human rights, and rule of law through liberation, solidarity, and speaking as a single actor and a force of resistance against being overruled by the powerful.

As global relations become more transactional (about markets and resources) and political clientelism replaces genuine, mutual partnerships where allies are treated as customers, the African perspective is critical in the political resource question of making peacebuilding work for a peaceful order because neocolonialism is a familiar question to Africa’s universal concerns regarding peace, human rights, and rule of law (democracy and constitutionalism). Conclusively, questions of resource extraction ignite Africa’s neo-colonial fears around the lack of respect for territorial sovereignty, human rights, and international law and order as exemplified by old-new powers in the emerging reorganization of empires. After all, it has never been about human rights and democracy anyway, neither has it been about constitutionalism, rule of (international) law, and civic liberties.

---

[1] Ogenga, F., Fastovsly, N., and Kidwai, S. (2024). The Work and Evidence Generation of Faith Actors on Peacebuilding and Governance in East Africa.  JLI East Africa Shared Learning Hub on Governance Peacebuilding and Local Faith Actors. https://jliflc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/East-Africa-Hub-SCOPING-STUDY-final.pdf.

[2] Aubyn, F. (2020). An overview of recent trends in African scholarly writing on peacebuilding. In I. Rashid and A. Niang. Researching Peacebuilding in Africa (pp. 12–23). Routledge.

[3] Ogenga, F., Fastovsly, N., and Kidwai, S. (2024). The Work and Evidence Generation of Faith Actors on Peacebuilding and Governance in East Africa.  JLI East Africa Shared Learning Hub on Governance Peacebuilding and Local Faith Actors. https://jliflc.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/East-Africa-Hub-SCOPING-STUDY-final.pdf.

[4] Ogenga, F. (2025). Faith Peacebuilding and Governance in East Africa- A Local Approach. Africa Journal of  Peace and Conflict Studies (Formerly Ubuntu journal of Conflict Transformation, 14(3). https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-aa_ubuntu1_v14_n3_a6.

[5] Wolf, J. (2022). The Local Turn and The Global South in Critical Peacebuilding Studies. Working Paper No. 57. Peace Research Institute. https://www.prif.org/fileadmin/Daten/Publikationen/Prif_Working_Papers/PRIF_WP_57.pdf#:~:text=South%20and%2C%20thereby%2C%20overcome%20the%20predominance%20of,practice%20and%20scholarship%20of%20international%20peace%20operations.

[6] Ibid

[7] Mutua, M. (2023). The Populist Illiberal Authoritarian. Sunday Nation, February 19, 2023. Opinion Piece, https://nation.africa/kenya/blogs-opinion/opinion/the-populist-illiberal-authoritarian-4128890.

[8] Crane, D. (2022). The End of Democratic Peace in the Age of the Strongman. JURISTnews. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2022/01/crane-david-democratic-peace-age-of-strongman/.

[9] Ibid

[10] Ogenga, F. (2025). Faith Peacebuilding and Governance in East Africa- A Local Approach. Africa Journal of  Peace and Conflict Studies (Formerly Ubuntu journal of Conflict Transformation, 14(3). https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-aa_ubuntu1_v14_n3_a6.

[11] Löfflmann, G. (2019). America First and the Populist Impact of US Foreign Policy. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, 61(6), 115–138. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2019.1688573.

[12] Crane, D. (2022). The End of Democratic Peace in the Age of the Strongman. JURISTnews. https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2022/01/crane-david-democratic-peace-age-of-strongman/.

[13] Aubyn, F. (2020). An overview of recent trends in African scholarly writing on peacebuilding. In I. Rashid and A. Niang. Researching Peacebuilding in Africa (pp. 12–23). Routledge.

[14] Ibid

[15] Aubyn, F. (2020). An overview of recent trends in African scholarly writing on peacebuilding. In I. Rashid and A. Niang. Researching Peacebuilding in Africa (pp. 12–23). Routledge.

[16] Aubyn, F. (2020). An overview of recent trends in African scholarly writing on peacebuilding. In I. Rashid and A. Niang. Researching Peacebuilding in Africa (pp. 12–23). Routledge.

[17] Ejike, E. J. (2022). Indigenous Methods of Peacebuilding and Conflict Management (Resolution) in Africa. Journal of African Studies and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 30.

[18] Genger, P. (2020). Re-empowering African Indigenous Peacemaking Approaches: Identifying the Enabling Possibilities from Decolonization and Indigenization Discourses. In S.Oloruntoba, A. Afolayan, & O. Yacob-Haliso (Eds,) Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan.

[19] Ibid

[20] Ogenga, F. (2025). Faith Peacebuilding and Governance in East Africa- A Local Approach. Africa Journal of  Peace and Conflict Studies (Formerly Ubuntu journal of Conflict Transformation, 14(3). https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-aa_ubuntu1_v14_n3_a6.

[21] Genger, P. (2020). Re-empowering African Indigenous Peacemaking Approaches: Identifying the Enabling Possibilities from Decolonization and Indigenization Discourses. In S.Oloruntoba, A. Afolayan, & O. Yacob-Haliso (Eds,) Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Development in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan.

[22] IEA, 2022. Securing Clean Energy Transition Supply Chains. International Energy Agency, https://www.iea.org/reports/securing-clean-energy-technology-supply-chains; OECD, 2022. Natural Resource Governance and Fragility in Sahel, OECD Development Cooperation Directorate. OECD, 2022. Environmental Fragility in the Sahel. OECD Publishing, Paris https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2022/04/natural-resource-governance-and-fragility-in-the-sahel_08448125/f95d6f2f-en.pdf; OECD, 2023. Toolkit to Measure Wellbeing in Minning Regions. OECD Regional Development Papers. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/01/toolkit-to-measure-well-being-in-mining-regions_dac25e4b/5a740fe0-en.pdf; OECD, 2020. Leading Practices for Resource Benefit Sharing and Development for and With Indigenous Communities. OECD Regional Development Papers. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/10/leading-practices-for-resource-benefit-sharing-and-development-for-and-with-indigenous-communities_55d50942/177906e7-en.pdf; OECD, 2019. Interconnected Supply Chains: A Comprehensive Look at Due Diligence Challenges and Opportunities Sourcing Cobalt and Copper from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/11/interconnected-supply-chains_cec91fc0/576804e7-en.pdf; OECD, 2016. OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk areas. Third Edition. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2016/04/oecd-due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-supply-chains-of-minerals-from-conflict-affected-and-high-risk-areas_g1g65996/9789264252479-en.pdf; OECD, 2015. Mineral Supply Chains and Conflict Links in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2015/11/mineral-supply-chain-and-conflict-links-in-the-eastern-democratic-republic-of-congo_e4739bc5/86e0c04b-en.pdf; Overy, N. 2025. “We’ll Smoke Them Out”: The Criminalization of Artisanal Minning in South Africa and the Tragedy of the Stilfontein. Cape Town: Heinrich Boll Foundation, https://za.boell.org/sites/default/files/2025-08/wewillsmokethemout-buffelsfontein_final.pdf; United Nations, 2025. Harnessing the Potential of Critical Minerals for Sustainable Development. In World Economic Situation and Prospects. United Nations Department of Economic Affairs, https://desapublications.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/2025-01/WESP%202025_Harnessing%20the%20Potential%20of%20Critical%20Minerals%20for%20Sustainable%20Development_WEB.pdf; G7 (2023). G7 Summit Statement on the Minerals Security Partnership. Ottawa: Government of Canada, https://g7.canada.ca/assets/ea689367/Attachments/NewItems/pdf/g7-summit-statements/minerals-en.pdf; United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2024). Tariff escalation keeps developing economies from moving up global value chains. Geneva: UNCTAD. Available at: https://unctad.org/news/tariff-escalation-keeps-developing-economies-moving-global-value-chains; South African Institute of International Affairs (2023). Harnessing Africa’s Critical Mineral Opportunity. Johannesburg: SAIIA, https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/harnessing-africas-critical-mineral-opportunity; United Nations (2025). Harnessing Critical Minerals for Inclusive Growth and Sustainable Development. World Economic Situation and Prospects 2025, 29-30 May. New York, United Nations, https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/EGM_WESP2024_BP.pdf 

[23] Ogenga, F., Bassiouni, B., Rusero, A., Siyobi, B., Allen, F., and Malungisa, D. (2025). Critical Minerals and the Energy Transition: A Framework for Sustainable Development and Supply Chain Resilience in the G20. Centre for Africa and Near East Studies (CANES), https://t20southafrica.org/external-publication/critical-minerals-and-the-energy-transition-a-framework-for-sustainable-development-and-supply-chain-resilience-in-the-g20/ ; https://canes.co.za/critical-minerals-and-the-energy-transition/

[24] Brauner, S.,  Lahnaoui, A., Agbo, S., Böschen, S., and Kuckshinrichs, W. (2023). Towards green hydrogen? – A comparison of German and African visions and expectations in the context of the H2Atlas-Africa project. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, 101204.

[25] H₂ATLAS-AFRICA project is a joint initiative of the German Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR) and African partners in the Sub-Saharan region (SADC and ECOWAS countries) to explore the potentials of hydrogen production from the renewable energy sources within the sub-regions. The results of the H2Atlas for West Africa are already available and they demonstrate enormous potential for the production of green hydrogen exists throughout the region through production “hot spots” can be viewed in an interactive map. See https://www.h2atlas.de/en/ 

[26] Brauner, S.,  Lahnaoui, A., Agbo, S., Böschen, S., and Kuckshinrichs, W. (2023). Towards green hydrogen? – A comparison of German and African visions and expectations in the context of the H2Atlas-Africa project. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, 101204.

[27] Ibid