Critical mineral mining faces risks if local communities aren’t consulted enough: Case of lithium in Ghana

Clean technologies depend on critical minerals such as lithium and cobalt. Over 65 per cent of the world’s cobalt is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Nearly 40 per cent of the world’s manganese is mined in South Africa. Substantial deposits of lithium are found in Zimbabwe. Ghana is emerging as a miner of that mineral of lithium too.

What’s less well understood is how the supply chains of these minerals are assessed and managed. The dominant view is that only three players matter: the mineral-mining industry, the host state where the minerals are found, and the wider geopolitical equation.

But there’s a fourth piece of the puzzle: The role of communities.

I am an academic researching justice and equity in critical minerals governance and energy transitions. In a recent paper, I examined the role of communities and the presence or absence of a social licence to operate. In other words, community “approval” that allows a project to proceed.

I focused on Ghana’s emerging lithium sector. Communities here are already feeling livelihood and social pressures following the commercial discovery. My research shows that weak and opaque governance around critical-mineral projects create early friction between communities, companies and the state. I found that delays in legal and regulatory processes, exclusion from decision making, and inadequate compensation routinely disrupt livelihoods in lithium rich communities.

These governance failures heighten local tensions. When communities feel sidelined or harmed, the risk of social conflict rises sharply. It can result in project delays, shutdowns and higher costs for both states and companies. These pressures are not incidental. They directly affect the stability of global supply chains.

I argue that effective risk governance must move beyond geopolitics. It must embed the fundamentals of social legitimacy. These include:

• free, prior and informed consent

• fair and transparent benefit-sharing

• sustained, meaningful engagement with affected communities.

Without these basics, no amount of technological innovation or diplomatic negotiation can secure the minerals needed for the energy transition.

As global competition intensifies over access to strategic minerals, the governance of mining sites in the global south becomes important for supply chain assurance.

Why local participation matters

My argument is that local participation is one of the strongest predictors of whether mining projects gain or lose legitimacy, and therefore whether supply chains remain stable or face disruption.

When communities are involved early and meaningfully in decisions about land access, water use, environmental safeguards and compensation, they are more likely to see mining not as an imposed threat but as a negotiated partnership. This reduces uncertainty, builds trust and lowers the likelihood of conflict. Those conditions are essential for predictable mineral flows.

Research in sustainable mining consistently shows that communities are not passive recipients of mining impacts. They are active agents whose consent, cooperation or resistance can determine the lifespan of entire supply chains. Participation creates the space for communities to articulate their needs. It shapes benefit‑sharing mechanisms and ensures that mining does not undermine local livelihoods. When people have no voice in decisions that affect their land, water or social well-being, grievances accumulate and protests, legal challenges or operational blockages become far more likely.

Findings from my research further demonstrate that participation is a practical risk-management tool. It is not a symbolic gesture. In mining communities, weak engagement and unclear communication about land restrictions and compensation create perceptions of dispossession. They intensify tensions that threaten project timelines. Conversely, when engagement is consistent and meaningful, concerns are addressed early. This reduces the likelihood of costly shutdowns and strengthens the long‑term security of mineral supply chains.

Participation anchors mining projects in social legitimacy. It shifts extraction from something done to communities towards something negotiated with them. It turns potential flashpoints into points of cooperation. In a world where a single protest can disrupt global supply chains, community participation is no longer optional. It is a fundamental safeguard for the energy transition.

Way forward

Reducing the risk of supply-chain disruptions is not easy, but there is a clear path to it.

First, future global meetings like the COP climate summits and UN processes should explicitly include critical minerals, sustainable mining and community protections as formal agenda items. This will close the long-standing governance gap that leaves mineral supply chains exposed.

Second, international bodies should develop shared indicators for meaningful participation, benefit-sharing and community legitimacy. Social licence must be treated as a material risk factor that can halt mines and disrupt global markets.

Instead of resisting regulation, mineral-producing countries should help shape global environmental, social and governance expectations. They should reflect local priorities, environmental conditions and value-addition goals, while ensuring stable, responsible mineral flows.

Governments and companies should establish shared governance arrangements covering water use, land access, benefit-sharing and grievance processes. This will build trust early and prevent local conflict.

Also, mineral-rich countries should align on minimum social and environmental standards, free, prior and informed consent requirements, and value-addition policies. These will ensure diversification does not encourage weak oversight or exploitation.