By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

Perhaps Russia’s state nuclear corporation, Rosatom, is at the frontline, shaping Africa’s energy security. And African countries are also accelerating coordinated efforts to build nuclear power plants primarily to supply their energy, which will drive industrialisation and boost power capacity for domestic utilisation.

Energy experts say adopting nuclear can further support a diverse energy mix, reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and help across the continent. Over the past two decades, Russia has been collaborating with African countries, adopting energy initiatives to provide power to approximately half the continent’s population, and making it an important component of Africa’s future energy strategy and solutions. At this point, however, it is necessary to underline the irreversible fact that Russia’s ultimate goal is to ensure long-term African energy security.

In this interview, Rosatom’s Chief Executive Director for Central and Southern Africa, Ryan Collyer, reiterates the strategic importance of Russia-Africa’s energy cooperation through strengthening bilateral agreements on collaboration on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Collyer explains that the Russian approach is its ability to offer an integrated solution, from technology and financing to training and localisation. According to him, partnerships must be built on mutual benefit and on the principle of transparency. Here follows the interview excerpts:

What are the expectations, specifically in the nuclear energy sphere, for Africa during the forthcoming Russia–Africa Summit scheduled for 2026?

The expectation is a clear shift from dialogue to delivery. Over the past few years, we have built a strong foundation through agreements, feasibility discussions and partnerships. The 2026 Russia–Africa Summit is an opportunity to demonstrate tangible progress.

In practical terms, I would expect greater focus on implementation readiness. That includes regulatory development, human capital, financing models and localisation strategies. We also expect to see more structured cooperation in areas like small modular reactors, which are particularly relevant for many African grids, as well as stronger emphasis on education and training partnerships. Ultimately, the success of the Summit will be measured by how many initiatives move from concept to execution.

Why, despite many bilateral agreements, is Africa still experiencing a significant energy deficit?

Africa’s energy deficit is not a result of a lack of ambition or agreements. It is primarily a question of scale, financing and infrastructure readiness. Energy projects, especially large-scale ones, require long-term investment, stable policy frameworks and strong institutional capacity. Many countries are working under fiscal constraints, and at the same time, demand is growing rapidly due to population growth and urbanisation. So, even when progress is made, it can be outpaced by rising demand.

It is also important to understand that many agreements are not meant to deliver immediate infrastructure. They are part of a longer preparation cycle, including feasibility studies, regulatory development and workforce training. Nuclear projects in particular are long-term by nature, and while this can be perceived as slow progress, it is actually a reflection of the level of diligence required.

How do you assess the contribution of nuclear energy to climate change mitigation and technological development in Africa?

Nuclear energy plays a dual role in Africa’s development, both as a clean energy source and as a driver of technological advancement. From a climate perspective, nuclear provides reliable, low-carbon electricity at scale. Africa needs a significant expansion of its energy capacity to support economic growth, and this growth must be both stable and sustainable.

Nuclear allows countries to increase power generation without increasing emissions, while ensuring a consistent baseload supply. At the same time, its impact goes beyond electricity. Nuclear technologies support medicine, agriculture, water management and industrial processes. Across Africa, they are already used in areas such as cancer treatment, food preservation and environmental monitoring, making nuclear a broader platform for sustainable development.

In this context, Rosatom offers integrated solutions across the full nuclear value chain. This includes large-scale and small modular reactors, as well as advanced non-power applications such as nuclear medicine and irradiation technologies. Our focus is on delivering practical, tailored solutions that support long-term development and local capacity building.

Is Africa unprepared to deal with nuclear waste, as some critics suggest?

I would say that preparedness varies across countries, but it would be inaccurate to suggest that the issue is being ignored. Responsible nuclear programmes require a comprehensive approach to waste management from the very beginning. This includes legal frameworks, regulatory oversight, storage solutions and long-term planning. These elements are part of international best practice and are supported by organisations such as the IAEA. What is true is that this topic is often undercommunicated in the public space. It should be discussed more openly, because transparency builds trust.

Countries that are serious about nuclear energy understand that waste management is not optional. It is a core component of the programme, and it is addressed in parallel with all other aspects of development. Rosatom offers comprehensive solutions for spent fuel and radioactive waste management. These include technologies for safe storage, transportation, reprocessing and recycling of nuclear materials. In fact, advanced reprocessing solutions allow for the reuse of valuable components of spent fuel, significantly reducing the volume of waste and improving the overall sustainability of the nuclear cycle.

Nuclear power remains controversial. Why do you believe it is important for Africa, and what role does it play in the energy mix?

Africa needs a balanced and pragmatic energy strategy. The conversation should not be about choosing one technology over another, but about building an energy mix that is reliable, affordable and sustainable. Renewables will play a critical role and are already expanding rapidly. However, they are variable by nature. For industrialisation, countries also need stable, continuous power that is baseload. This is where nuclear can make a meaningful contribution. A diversified energy mix that includes renewables, nuclear, hydropower and other sources allows countries to reduce risk, improve energy security and support long-term economic growth.

Nuclear is not the only solution, but it is an important part of a resilient system, especially for countries with growing industrial ambitions. In this context, Rosatom is able to support countries with integrated energy solutions that combine reliability, sustainability and long-term partnership models, tailored to national development priorities.

How can we shift public perception, given the legacy of Chornobyl and Fukushima?

We cannot rewrite history, and we should not try to. Events like Chornobyl and Fukushima shaped public perception for a reason. The starting point is respect for those concerns, not dismissal. At the same time, what is often missing in the conversation is what happened after those events. Chornobyl, in particular, fundamentally reshaped the entire philosophy of nuclear safety. It led to a complete rethinking of reactor design, emergency response, and regulatory oversight. Independent regulators were strengthened, safety responsibilities were clearly separated from operators, and safety culture became not just a principle but a legal requirement supported by continuous drills and probabilistic risk assessments.

Technologically, the industry also changed dramatically. Modern reactors are designed to withstand even worst-case scenarios, with multi-layered “defence-in-depth” systems, core melt traps, and passive safety mechanisms that rely on natural physical processes rather than human intervention. These are not incremental improvements. They are the direct result of lessons learned at a very high cost. But facts alone do not change perception. People do not build trust through reports. They build it through experience and transparency. That is why our approach in Africa is deliberately open.

We create opportunities for students, young professionals and journalists to visit nuclear facilities, research centres and training programmes. When people can see how systems operate, how safety is managed, and how seriously it is taken, the conversation becomes more grounded and less abstract. There is also an important human dimension that is often overlooked.

The history of Chornobyl is not only a story of tragedy. It is also a story of professionalism, responsibility and the people who managed the crisis and generated the knowledge that made today’s safety standards possible. Acknowledging that the full picture helps move the discussion away from fear alone toward understanding. At the same time, we need to broaden the narrative. Nuclear is not only about power generation. It is about cancer treatment, food security, water management and high-skilled employment. When communities begin to connect nuclear technology with real benefits in their own lives, it stops being an abstract risk and starts becoming a practical solution. Ultimately, perception does not change through persuasion. It changes through consistency. Through transparency, long-term engagement, and real-world impact.

What are your final thoughts on Russia’s preparedness to support Africa’s nuclear ambitions?

Russia has demonstrated that it is committed to long-term partnerships in Africa, particularly in the nuclear sector. We are already seeing concrete examples of cooperation in areas such as project development, education and skills transfer. The key strength of the Russian approach is its ability to offer an integrated solution, from technology and financing to training and localisation. Partnerships must be built on mutual benefit and transparency. Africa’s priorities are clear: energy security, economic development and local capacity building. Any partner that is ready to contribute to these goals consistently and practically will have a meaningful role to play. If we look country by country, the picture becomes even more interesting.

Take Ethiopia. This is a country thinking long-term about energy security and industrialisation. It has strong hydropower, but also understands the need to diversify. Ethiopia is prepared to take a big step towards nuclear energy. In Rwanda, the approach is different. It is focused on innovation and speed. There is a strong interest in small and flexible nuclear technologies, alongside active use of nuclear science in healthcare and agriculture. What stands out is the clarity of vision and pace of implementation.

Then, there is Namibia. As a major uranium producer, the question is how to move up the value chain. Partnerships can help connect resources to technology, skills and future energy applications. So, Russia’s role is not one-size-fits-all.

The real strength lies in adapting to each country’s strategy. If that continues, nuclear cooperation becomes not just about energy, but about shaping long-term technological development. Rosatom is one of the few global players capable of delivering the entire nuclear value chain. This includes reactor technologies, fuel supply, waste management solutions, including reprocessing, as well as long-term operational support and human capital development. This comprehensive capability is what allows us to move projects from concept to reality in a structured and sustainable way.

By Kestér Kenn Klomegâh

The Centre for Transition Economy Studies of the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences held a two-day scientific conference under the theme: “Industrial Development Strategies of African Countries” on March 18-19. The conference was opened by Professor Irina Abramova, Director of the Institute for African Studies. More than 40 researchers and experts from Russia, South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt and North Macedonia took part in the event.

The conference focused on a wide range of significant issues related to Africa’s industrial development, the modernisation of the African production base, and the potential for Russian-African cooperation. The in-person part of the conference focused on the development of the manufacturing and extractive industries, special economic zones, energy and transport infrastructure, digitalisation, and the agro-industrial complex. The second day of the conference was conducted as an online discussion in English, featuring African colleagues on the localisation of production chains in Africa, covering both agricultural and mineral processing.

Topics of the Conference included:

1. Continental, regional and national programs and plans of industrial development in Africa. Prospects of continental and regional production chains.
2. Study of the manufacturing market in African countries: manufacturing and agro-industrial complexes
3. Energy, transport, and digitalisation: necessary infrastructure for industrial development.
4. Interests of Multinational Corporations in Africa: conditions, forms of activities and geographical distribution. The role of free economic zones.
5. Government policy regarding Multinational Corporations and control over export-import flows.
6. The role of international organisations and activities of external actors.
7. Possible areas and prospects for expanding mutually beneficial cooperation for Russian companies in Africa.

Experts in African studies from Russia, as well as representatives of the Russian government and business circles involved in trade and economic cooperation with African countries, actively participated. One of the significant outputs presented at the plenary session of the conference was the full-text on the African Development Strategy database created by Professors D. A. Degterev and A. D. Novikov, together with the staff of the IAS. The database covers more than 400 official strategic planning documents across 53 countries on the continent for the period 1997–2025. It systematises them under six thematic areas: long-term and medium-term development strategies, industrial policy, ICT, agriculture and the water sector.

The plenary session featured nine reports covering key dimensions of Africa’s industrial development. There were issues of trade and industrial potential of the continent that were highlighted in the report on the export specificity of African machine-building industries: based on ITC Trade Map data (2019–2024) that shows duties of South Africa, Tunisia, and industrial production, including on intracontinental markets.

Institutional mechanisms of Russian-African economic cooperation were reviewed in the report on the activities of Intergovernmental Commissions: the number of these ICC increased from four (4) in 2023 to nine (9) in 2025, and the volume of investment funds to support African projects is planned to increase, at least, to Rouble 5 billion for 2026–2027.

The conceptual dimension of financing industrialisation was presented through a critique of universal Western narratives and the justification for the need for an “application finance strategy”—a country model that takes into account the economy of Africa. Practical aspects of Russia’s investment presence in Africa are characterized on the example of projects in the countries of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) with an emphasis on the specific risks of the subregion (DM Sinitsyn, VEB.RF). Digitalisation and artificial intelligence development in sub-Saharan African countries were also analysed and presented at the conference.

Russian-African cooperation in the field of technologies and education was covered in the reports on the transfer of agrobiotechnologies through the Afro-Russian Centre for Technology Development in Kampala, within which, in 2025/2026, this period, in which concretely 467 citizens of African countries were trained in Russian universities (NA Goncharova, FGBU “Agroexport”).

The competitive struggle of foreign players for African markets and the possibilities of Russian participation were considered in the reports on the position of the continent on the world energy markets, supplies of ground vehicles, and activities of pharmaceuticals for Africa. The digital dimension of industrialisation was covered by the reports on the cyber potential of West Africa, the formation of data processing centres in the industrial strategy of South Africa, and the digitalisation strategies of Algeria and Morocco.

The theme of most speeches, at the conference, became a reflection on the ‘disconnection’ between the proclaimed goals of industrialisation and the actual structure of African economies: despite the widespread proliferation of pre-national strategic documents, industries in the continent’s total GDP has not exceeded 10–12% for more than two decades, and exports still comprise mainly unprocessed raw materials.

In this regard, a number of reports justify the need to transition from external financial models formed by international organisations to sovereign country strategies based on state political, industrial and human resources. Global South—including, to deepen Russian-African cooperation in the spheres of technology, education and investment.

A collective monograph is, however, planned for publication following the conference. The event included the presentation of the full-text database on African development strategies, prepared by the team of the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

By Aduragbemi Omiyale

A court in Paris, France, has found notable French cement manufacturer, Lafarge, and eight of its former employees guilty of terrorism financing.

Delivering the judgment on Monday, Judge Isabelle Prevost-Desprez held that Lafarge paid some members of the Islamic State (IS or ISIS) in Syria about $6.5 million (€5.59 million; £4.83 million) between 2013 and 2014 to protect its plant operating in northern Syria.

The court said this action provided oxygen for the terror group to operate and carry out its violent acts.

The former chief executive of the company, Mr Bruno Lafont, was also found complicit and has been sentenced to six years.

“It is clear to the court that the sole purpose of the funding of a terrorist organisation was to keep the Syrian plant running for economic reasons. Payments to terrorist entities enabled Lafarge to continue its operations,” the judge said, adding that, “These payments took the form of a genuine commercial partnership with IS.”

The factory in Jalabiya, northern Syria, was bought by Lafarge in 2008 for $680 million and began operations in 2010, months before the civil war began in March 2011, following opposition to then-president Bashar al-Assad’s brutal repression of anti-government protests.

ISIS jihadists seized large swathes of Syria and neighbouring Iraq in 2014, declaring a so-called cross-border “caliphate” and implementing their brutal interpretation of Islamic law.

To keep its plant running and protect its employees, Lafarge, between 2013 and September 2014, paid about €800,000 to secure safe passage and €1.6 million to purchase source materials from quarries under the control of the jihadist groups.

According to the BBC, Lafarge acknowledged the court’s finding, which it said “concerns a legacy matter involving conduct that occurred more than a decade ago and was in flagrant violation of Lafarge’s code of conduct,” describing the decision as an “important milestone” in the company’s actions to “address this legacy matter responsibly.”