Tania Mandaza, Vice President for Mining & Metals at Stanbic Bank, sits at the intersection of finance and mining, where she helps shape how African mining projects are structured and funded. In this interview, she shares insights on bankability, risk assessment, and why Zimbabwe must shift from raw mineral exports to value-added industrialisation.
Tania, your role as Vice President for Mining & Metals at Stanbic Bank places you at the nexus of finance and mining. What was your path to this specialised field? Was it a planned focus, and what initially drew you to the mining sector from a banking perspective?
Well, my path wasn’t a straight line from Finance into Mining, and it certainly wasn’t a planned focus. I have built a solid foundation in finance through studies in Accounting, Marketing and an MBA in Strategic Leadership, complemented by a specialised program at the Gordon Institute of Business Science in South Africa, which further strengthened my financial expertise. About 10 years ago, an unexpected opportunity arose within Client Coverage-what other banks call Corporate Banking-to join the Mining Finance Portfolio. At the time, I was managing Non-Bank Financial Institutions(NBFI) and Consumer Agriculture clients. My experience with NBFIs gave me a strong foundation in structuring complex deals, managing diverse risks, and working with global stakeholders. Those skills proved invaluable when I transitioned into mining finance, where projects are equally complex, capital-intensive, and require innovative solutions to balance risk and reward. Agriculture, on the other hand, is life-sustaining and cyclical, tied to natural renewal and human consumption. Mining, by contrast, is finite and extractive, focused on unlocking hidden resources that cannot be replenished. I chose to stay longer on the mining portfolio because it is a technical and complex field that continues to evolve, and that is exactly what excites me. Each day brings new challenges and opportunities to create value, not only for clients but also for the broader industry. Since then, I have made a deliberate decision to remain in mining finance, where the dynamic nature of the sector allows me to combine technical expertise with strategic financial solutions.
In my current role, I blend my financial knowledge with insights into the mining sector, particularly commodity markets and the broader mining industry. These skills continue to grow as I gain hands-on experience on the mining desk. This has enabled me to deliver tailored solutions to mining companies, from working capital to vehicle and asset finance, as well as structured finance. Beyond financing, we provide advisory services that unlock growth opportunities while reinforcing the bank’s role in driving sustainable economic development. As you may be aware, Stanbic Bank Zimbabwe Limited is a member of Standard Bank Group, which is the largest bank in Africa by assets and is present in 21 African Countries. Being part of a Pan-African bank has also given me exposure to diverse African markets, many of which are complex and rich in mining activity, further deepening my expertise. Mining is central to Zimbabwe’s economy, and what struck me was that mining projects are not only capital-intensive but also require financing structures which balance long timelines, commodity price volatility, and regulatory considerations, and that complexity drew me in.
You sit in a unique position, assessing risk and opportunity across the entire mining sector. How does your perspective on a mining project differ from that of a geologist or an engineer? What do you see that they might miss, and vice versa?
As a financier evaluating mining projects, it is essential to have a holistic view of the mine. While geologists and engineers focus on technical soundness and feasibility, we need to understand enough of their disciplines to assess risk and translate findings into financial realities. Our role centres on bankability, not just whether reserves exist and can be extracted, but whether the project can deliver reliable returns within an acceptable risk framework. This means looking beyond reserve reports to factors such as cash flow modelling, market volatility, regulatory stability, and the credibility of management and sponsors. We are especially attuned to risks that may derail projects despite strong geology, including political uncertainty, community relations, environmental liabilities, and the robustness of offtake agreements.
At the same time, technical experts provide critical insights into ore body geometry, metallurgical complexity, and process design issues that directly shape production forecasts and operational risk. Ultimately, successful mining finance depends on collaboration: combining technical expertise with financial analysis to build projects that are not only feasible but sustainable and investable.
In your Mining Indaba interview, you spoke about what makes a rare earth project “bankable.” Can you break that down for us? When you look at a resource report or a mine plan, what are the specific technical or geological red flags that will make you, as a banker, walk away from a deal, even if the resource numbers look promising on paper?
Certainly. It is important to point out that financiers look at Reserves rather than Resources. This is because Reserves represent the portion of a mineral deposit that is economically viable to extract under current market conditions, supported by technical and feasibility studies. Resources, on the other hand, are broader estimates of mineral presence that may not yet be proven to be commercially recoverable. From a banking perspective, Reserves provide the certainty and reliability needed to structure financing, as they underpin cash flow projections and debt repayment capacity. When assessing the bankability of critical minerals and rare earth projects, even if a deposit appears sizeable and grades look attractive, there are several specific technical and geological factors that can raise red flags and ultimately lead a Financier to walk away from a deal.
- Ore Body Complexity: technical aspects that directly affect project economics, like issues with the Structure-Faults and discontinuities within the ore body, can complicate extraction, requiring more advanced engineering solutions and increasing costs. Deleterious Materials– The presence of harmful elements (such as arsenic, sulfur) can reduce ore quality, increase processing costs, and create environmental liabilities. Quality of Grades– The concentration of valuable minerals within the ore body determines revenue potential. Lower grades require higher volumes of ore to be processed, which raises costs and reduces margins. Recoveries: The percentage of valuable material that can be successfully extracted during processing is critical. Even with high grades, poor recoveries can undermine profitability and repayment capacity.
- Metallurgical Uncertainty: Rare earths often require complex processing. If the reserve report does not clearly demonstrate that the minerals can be economically and reliably separated and refined, or if pilot testing is lacking, that’s a major concern. Note: Bespoke processing facilities introduce a higher risk than standard processing that has been tried and tested
- Adherence to Environmental Rules: If there are unresolved permit issues or unclear plans for managing waste and rehabilitation, these factors can stall or derail a project regardless of the resource quality.
- Infrastructure Deficits: A deposit may look promising on paper, but if there is no reliable access to water, power, transport, or skilled labour, execution risk becomes too high. The absence of complementary infrastructure can make even a well-defined resource uneconomic.
- Realistic Mine Plan: If the mine plan does not address ramp-up schedules, realistic production rates, or contingency plans for operational challenges, it signals a lack of preparedness and increases the risk profile.
Ultimately, bankability is about confidence: confidence that the reserve can be extracted and processed profitably, that risks are understood and mitigated, and that the project can withstand market, regulatory, and operational shocks. If any of these technical or geological areas are weak or uncertain, no matter how attractive the headline numbers are, it’s a signal to reconsider involvement. That’s why collaboration not only with geologists and engineers but with all critical stakeholders like environmentalists, lawyers, accountants, to mention a few, is essential-only with their expertise can a banker truly understand where the pitfalls may lie and whether a project is truly viable in practice, not just on paper.
You’ve highlighted Africa’s pivotal moment in the rare earths space, driven by the energy transition. You’ve also noted that these opportunities “differ from traditional mining models.” In your view, what is the single biggest shift in mindset required for an African government or a local mining company to successfully move from being a traditional bulk exporter to a participant in a complex, processed rare earth supply chain?
The most significant change in mindset is shifting from volume to value. Historically, mining in Africa has centred on exporting raw materials in bulk, but rare earths and critical minerals require a different strategy. Success depends on governments and local businesses investing in integrated supply chains-processing, refining, and forming technology partnerships-rather than focusing solely on extraction.
Concepts like beneficiation and value addition are often undervalued, and Africa continues to lose immense benefits by supplying unprocessed ore- the opportunity cost is enormous, underscoring the urgent need for a mindset shift. Alongside this, skills development, infrastructure, and strong ESG standards must be prioritised to meet global expectations. Collaboration across borders with governments and downstream industries is also essential, given critical minerals and rare earths’ role in strategic sectors such as clean energy and advanced manufacturing. To achieve this, there may be a need to consider the following regulatory changes.
- Mineral Cadastre and Exploration policy -Need for enhancing interoperability and transparency of the mineral Cadastre system, and to introduce stronger incentives for exploration (tax breaks, streamlined licensing, public-private partnerships) to prove reserves and expand geological knowledge.
- Beneficiation & Value Addition Mandates– Enact policies that require or incentivise local processing and refining of minerals before export. Provide fiscal incentives (e.g., reduced royalties, tax holidays) for companies investing in downstream industries such as battery or magnet manufacturing.
- Infrastructure & Logistics Regulation-Create frameworks that encourage private sector participation in building rail, roads, power, and renewable energy plants.
- Simplify border procedures and customs regulations to reduce trade bottlenecks.
- Skills Development & Local Content Laws-Mandate local content requirements to ensure Zimbabwean professionals are employed in technical and managerial roles. Support vocational training and university programs in geology, metallurgy, and engineering through public-private partnerships.
- Legal & Governance Framework-Strengthen property rights, contract enforcement, and anti-corruption measures to build investor confidence. Ensure predictable, transparent regulation which aligns with international best practices.
- ESG Standards & Cross-Border Collaboration-Adopt global environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards to meet expectations of international financiers and downstream industries. Harmonise regulations across African countries to enable cross-border supply chains for rare earths and critical minerals, especially in clean energy and advanced manufacturing sectors.
Ultimately, it’s important to highlight that transformation lies in moving from being a commodity supplier to becoming an active participant in a complex, high‑value ecosystem. For a deeper exploration of this topic, see my article Harnessing Africa’s Rare Earth Potential, published in the December/January 2026 issue of African Business Magazine, featured on page 48
At Mining Indaba, you mention the need for “complementary infrastructure and skills.” Focusing on Zimbabwe specifically, where are the most critical gaps in the ecosystem that could prevent it from capitalising on its rare earth and critical mineral potential, and what role can financial institutions like Stanbic play in bridging those gaps beyond just providing capital?
Zimbabwe’s ability to unlock its rare earth potential is constrained by several foundational gaps, beyond processing infrastructure and specialised skills. Key challenges include:
- Mineral Cadastre Gaps: The absence of a fully operational Cadastre system limits clarity on ownership, rights, and deposit locations, reducing investor confidence and project bankability.
- Exploration Incentives: Weak incentives and inadequate structures to support exploration discourage companies from proving reserves. Without accurate mapping and sustained exploration, Zimbabwe cannot fully leverage its geological endowment.
- Lack of Processing Infrastructure: Beneficiation and value addition are critical. Local processing of minerals enables Zimbabwe to capture more value, drive industrialisation, and foster inclusive growth.
- Complementary Infrastructure: Reliable power, modern rail and road networks, border upgrades, and renewable energy plants are essential for competitive integration into global supply chains.
- Specialised Skills: Expanding the pool of geologists, engineers, metallurgists, and technicians through targeted training is vital to support industrial transformation.
- Logistics: Underdeveloped logistics systems hinder efficiency and competitiveness.
- Legal and Regulatory Framework: A transparent, predictable system that protects property rights and ensures fair governance is indispensable for attracting long-term investment.
Financial institutions such as Stanbic Bank can play a catalytic role by co‑developing infrastructure, supporting skills training, and structuring partnerships that embed Zimbabwe into global value chains. By addressing these gaps holistically, Zimbabwe can move beyond raw mineral extraction towards value addition, industrial transformation, and sustainable economic growth. At Stanbic Bank, we go beyond capital provision to act as strategic partners in industrial transformation, not just lenders. We believe Zimbabwe is our home, and we drive her growth.
There is a widely held view that Zimbabwe is “hamstrung by a lack of exploration.” From a financier’s standpoint, is this primarily a geological risk issue, a policy and regulatory hurdle, or a problem of access to patient capital? In your experience, what is the most effective de-risking tool that could unlock exploration funding for Zimbabwe right now?
From a Financier’s perspective, the perception that the country is “hamstrung by a lack of exploration” is rooted in a combination of geological risk, policy and regulatory hurdles, and limited access to patient capital. There is a need for consistent, transparent policy and regulatory frameworks and an efficient permitting process. This will entice both local and international investors to commit funds, regardless of the country’s geological potential.
While geological risk is always a factor, especially given the complexities of rare earths and critical minerals, policy and regulation uncertainties amplify those risks, making it difficult to secure the patient capital required for early-stage exploration. Investors need assurance that their capital will be protected and that discoveries can be developed, without delays or changes in rules.
The most effective de-risking tool to unlock exploration funding right now would be a government-backed exploration guarantee or risk-sharing mechanism. This could take the form of a dedicated fund, underwritten by both government and private stakeholders, that provides partial guarantees or insurance against exploration risk. In addition, streamlining regulatory processes and ensuring transparency, as well as offering targeted incentives such as tax breaks or fast-track permitting for exploration projects, would go a long way in encouraging patient capital to flow into the sector.
Ultimately, collaboration between government, equity providers, commercial banks, and development finance institutions is key. By working together to reduce regulatory uncertainty and share exploration risk (usually funded by the shareholders (through equity or IPO’s), stream providers, development finance institutions), Zimbabwe can attract the investment needed to unlock its mineral potential and lay the foundation for broader economic growth.
For a junior explorer with a promising project in Zimbabwe but no revenue, what does a “bankable” proposal look like to you? What non-geological factors, like offtake agreements, management team, or community engagement, carry the most weight when you’re considering backing an early-stage venture?
For a junior explorer in Zimbabwe with a promising but pre-revenue project, a “bankable” proposal must go beyond its geological potential. It should highlight the broader factors that inspire financier confidence. While each project is assessed on a case-by-case basis, from a general financing perspective, the most critical non-geological elements include:
- Offtake Agreements: Securing a credible offtake agreement or at least demonstrating serious interest from potential buyers is a powerful signal. It shows that there is demand for the eventual product and provides a pathway to future cash flow, which is essential for de-risking the project.
- Management and/or Sponsor Teams: The experience, track record, and integrity of the management team carry significant weight. Investors and banks want to see a team with relevant technical expertise, operational experience in similar environments, and a history of delivering on commitments. A strong leadership group can often mitigate perceived risks and attract further investment.
- Community Engagement: Demonstrating meaningful outreach and partnership with local communities is crucial. Effective community engagement reduces the risk of social license issues, regulatory delays, and operational disruptions. A bankable proposal should show a clear strategy for shared benefits, employment, and environmental stewardship.
- Regulatory Compliance: The project should be structured to comply with Zimbabwe’s legal and regulatory requirements, with all necessary permits either secured or realistically attainable. Transparent documentation and a clear permitting roadmap reassure financiers that the venture can move forward without unexpected hurdles.
- Risk Mitigation and Partnerships: Where possible, proposals should incorporate risk-sharing mechanisms, such as insurance, government-backed guarantees, or partnerships with development finance institutions. These tools can help offset the inherent risks of early-stage exploration.
Ultimately, a bankable proposal is one that provides a holistic picture: it combines strong technical fundamentals with credible commercial arrangements, robust governance, community alignment, and a plan for navigating regulatory challenges. These non-geological factors are often what tip the balance for financiers considering backing a junior explorer in Zimbabwe.
Looking five to ten years ahead, if Africa successfully harnesses its rare earth potential, what does success actually look like on the ground in a country like Zimbabwe? What is the one measurable change in the economy, in communities, or in the industry itself, that would tell you the continent has truly achieved the “industrial transformation” you speak of?
Mining is a long-lead industry, which means that meaningful transformation may not be visible within the first 5 to 10 years. However, beyond that horizon, if Africa fully harnesses its rare earth potential, countries such as Zimbabwe could achieve tangible success through local value addition. This involves not only extracting rare earth minerals but also processing, refining, and integrating them into domestic manufacturing supply chains.
The clearest marker of industrial transformation would be the rise of a robust local industry, such as battery and magnet production, or components for renewable energy and electronics, that employs Zimbabwean talent, drives technology transfer, and fosters sustainable growth. A measurable shift would be a significant increase in exports of value-added rare earth products rather than raw minerals, signalling movement up the value chain, stronger innovation capacity, improved governance, and enhanced industrial resilience.
For communities, this transformation would mean lower unemployment through job creation, better infrastructure, and expanded opportunities for skills development. Ultimately, it would raise living standards, minimise poverty, and position Zimbabwe as a critical player in the global supply of materials essential for clean energy and advanced technologies.
