The Case:
In 2025, Kenya emerged as a prospective player in the critical minerals landscape, attracting growing attention for its exploration potential and strategic location within East Africa. Unlike established producers, Kenya’s challenge was not managing legacy extraction but setting the rules of engagement early— before expectations, conflicts, and informal practices became entrenched. The country’s experience highlighted how anticipation can shape governance outcomes as powerfully as production itself.
The Facts:
At the start of 2025, Kenya was still in an exploratory and early development phase for most mineral prospects. Government discourse emphasized attracting investment, improving geological data, and aligning mineral development with national infrastructure and industrial goals. Expectations around job creation and local development rose quickly in prospective regions.
By mid-year, tensions surfaced around land access, community consultation, and benefit-sharing frameworks. While large-scale production had not yet materialized, early grievances reflected concerns over transparency, environmental risk, and local inclusion. Regulatory processes advanced, but coordination between national agencies and county governments remained uneven.
In the second half of the year, policy efforts focused on strengthening licensing clarity and stakeholder engagement. However, limited administrative capacity and overlapping mandates slowed progress. By December, Kenya had not yet faced the pressures of full-scale extraction—but the contours of future governance challenges were already visible.
Why This Case Was Important in 2025
Kenya mattered in 2025 because it demonstrated that legitimacy challenges begin well before production starts. As interest in critical minerals intensified globally, early-stage jurisdictions faced rising expectations without the institutional depth to manage them fully. The case underscored a broader lesson: delays or missteps during exploration can shape long-term trust dynamics. Kenya showed that the success of future mineral development will depend less on geological outcomes than on how early governance choices align investor incentives, community expectations, and state capacity.