ZIMBABWE stands at a decisive juncture in its economic development.
Blessed with vast mineral resources ranging from platinum, lithium and gold to chrome and diamonds, the country continues to lose billions annually through the export of unprocessed minerals.
The paradox is glaring: mineral-rich yet manufacturing poor.
To reverse this trend, Zimbabwe must urgently move beyond rhetoric and adopt a coherent institutional and policy framework that embeds mineral beneficiation and value addition into the country’s broader industrialisation strategy.
At present, beneficiation and value-addition initiatives are led by the Department of Research, Beneficiation and Value Addition within the Mines and Mining Development ministry.
This department bears the responsibility of driving research and monitoring beneficiation efforts.
However, its potential remains constrained by weak institutional coordination, inadequate funding, limited technological infrastructure and a fragmented policy environment.
While government rhetoric has consistently promoted beneficiation, progress has been piecemeal, largely due to a lack of an integrated mechanism to align industrial, fiscal and trade policies with mining development priorities.
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Bulls to charge into Zimbabwe gold stocks
- Ndiraya concerned as goals dry up
- Japan brings cheer to Gokwe
Keep Reading
A major limitation has been the absence of a clearly defined national coordination framework that harmonises the roles of various actors, government ministries, the private sector, research institutions and local authorities.
In its current form, policy implementation often occurs in silos, with the Mines ministry advancing beneficiation goals without synchronised support from the ministries of Industry and Commerce, Finance, Higher Education as well as Energy.
To correct this misalignment, Zimbabwe requires a well-structured governance model that centralises technical leadership within the Mines ministry while introducing an institutional mechanism for cross-sectoral coordination.
A viable solution would be the establishment of a National Mineral Beneficiation and Industrialisation Council (NMBIC) anchored within the Mines a ministry.
The council would serve as a strategic platform bringing together key ministries, private sector representatives, research and innovation institutions, and local authorities under a unified framework.
Its core function would be to coordinate policy, research, investment promotion, and industrial planning for beneficiation projects across mineral value chains.
To avoid bureaucratic duplication, the Office of the President and Cabinet could play a limited oversight role, ensuring that the council’s programmes align with the country’s national development agenda without undermining ministerial autonomy.
Lessons from countries such as Botswana, South Africa and Indonesia offer valuable insights into the institutional models that can support Zimbabwe’s beneficiation drive.
Botswana’s diamond beneficiation success stems from its government’s strategic partnership with De Beers, resulting in the establishment of local cutting and polishing industries supported by skills transfer programmes.
South Africa’s Mineral Beneficiation Strategy institutionalised co-ordination through inter-departmental clusters, linking mining, manufacturing and trade policies.
Indonesia went further by enforcing export restrictions on raw minerals, compelling local processing and fostering domestic smelting capacity.
These experiences demonstrate that beneficiation is not achieved by policy declarations alone, but through deliberate institutional alignment, industrial incentives and private sector participation.
In Zimbabwe’s case, NMBIC could operationalise coordination through two main mechanisms: an Inter-Ministerial Co-ordination Committee (IMCC) and a Technical and Innovation Sub-Committee (TISC).
IMCC would comprise senior officials from key ministries, tasked with ensuring alignment of fiscal incentives, power supply planning and industrial infrastructure development with beneficiation objectives.
TISC, drawing experts from universities, research centres and the private sector, would focus on technology development, research and development commercialisation, and technical standards for mineral processing.
This dual structure would institutionalise communication between policymakers, technologists and industry players turning research output into implementable industrial solutions.
For beneficiation to succeed, however, governance reform must be accompanied by practical interventions.
The first is the creation of a Mineral Value Chain Development Fund, managed by the Mines ministry in partnership with local financial institutions, to provide concessional financing for domestic smelting, refining and fabrication projects.
Secondly, Zimbabwe must establish regional beneficiation and industrial parks, strategically located near mining areas and coordinated by rural district councils.
These parks would facilitate shared infrastructure, access to energy and linkages with small and medium enterprises engaged in mineral-based manufacturing.
Such initiatives would decentralise beneficiation, ensuring that communities hosting mineral deposits derive tangible benefits beyond revenue shares.
Moreover, private sector participation should not merely be an afterthought.
The council should formalise public-private partnerships that incentivise investors to develop downstream industries while embedding local content and skills transfer obligations.
In this respect, Zimbabwe can emulate Indonesia’s model of conditional licensing, where mining rights are tied to demonstrable progress
in domestic value addition.
This approach would not only attract responsible investors but also safeguard against exploitative practices that disempower local players and relegate beneficiation to foreign-dominated enclaves.
Research and innovation are equally central to the beneficiation agenda.
Zimbabwe’s universities, polytechnics and research centres should be repositioned as industrial knowledge hubs through formal collaboration with the Mines ministry.
Establishing joint research and development programmes focused on metallurgy, material science and product design would generate local technologies for mineral processing and manufacturing.
Linking these innovations with the proposed technical and innovation sub-committee would enable the translation of scientific output into scalable industrial projects, fostering a knowledge-driven mining economy.
Ultimately, the success of Zimbabwe’s beneficiation and value addition agenda hinges on institutional coherence, political will and accountability.
Establishing the NMBIC under the leadership of the ministry, supported by an inter-ministerial coordination committee and a technical sub-committee, would create a practical, locally relevant model that integrates government policy, research, and industrial practice.
Such a framework would transform mineral wealth into industrial capability, empowering communities, revitalising local industries and advancing sustainable economic transformation.
If implemented with commitment, Zimbabwe could evolve from being a primary exporter of raw minerals to a regional hub of mineral-based manufacturing and innovation, a nation that not only mines wealth, but also makes wealth.
