When officials from the Department of Mining appeared before a parliamentary committee recently, they made a revealing admission.
According to the department, if Malawi is serious about unlocking the potential of its mineral resources, the country will need about K114 billion in additional funding. And they need it now!
That figure alone should give policymakers pause.
For years, Malawi has spoken about mining with near-religious enthusiasm. Under Malawi 2063, the sector sits alongside agriculture, tourism and manufacturing as one of the pillars expected to transform the country into a middle-income economy.
It is an ambitious strategy, but one that needs more money than the government is willing to commit. Consider the numbers. The Department of Mining currently operates on about K8.56 billion. Meanwhile, the 2026/27 national budget is estimated at roughly K10.9 trillion.
That means the institution tasked with developing one of Malawi’s strategic growth sectors receives less than 0.1 percent of government spending. Less than a rounding error!
If mining is truly central to the country’s economic transformation, it is difficult to explain why the department responsible for developing it operates on what is effectively a maintenance budget.
The irony is hard to ignore. Government policy repeatedly describes mining as a future engine of exports, foreign exchange and industrial growth. Yet the institutions responsible for discovering and managing those mineral resources remain chronically underfunded.
Put simply, Malawi wants a mining boom without funding the groundwork that makes mining possible.
And that groundwork is expensive.
According to officials who briefed Parliament, the requested K114 billion would support a range of activities essential to developing the sector.
The funding would strengthen mineral exploration through modern drilling equipment and field vehicles. It would expand geological mapping programmes to identify potential deposits. It would upgrade laboratory infrastructure used to analyse mineral samples. It would also support regulatory enforcement, digital mineral data systems and the formalisation of artisanal and small-scale miners.
None of these activities are glamorous. But every successful mining economy invests in them.
The most significant portion of the proposed funding—about K45.7 billion—would go toward strengthening geological exploration through the Geological Survey Department.
And here lies the strategic heart of the debate.
Mining does not begin with bulldozers or export revenues. It begins with information. Geological surveys tell governments what minerals exist, where they are located and whether they are commercially viable.
Without that information, governments rely heavily on data produced by private investors.
That is rarely a comfortable negotiating position.
When investors carry the financial risk of discovering mineral deposits, they also gain the leverage to demand larger shares of the rewards. Countries that generate their own geological data, by contrast, negotiate from a position of knowledge.
Exploration would give the government that leverage. There is, however, another issue Parliament has correctly raised: duplication.
Lawmakers have questioned the apparent overlap between the Geological Survey Department and the Malawi Mining Investment Company (Mamico).
The concern is straightforward.
Mamico was created as a government investment vehicle designed to participate in mining ventures and manage state equity in projects. Exploration, meanwhile, has traditionally been the responsibility of the Department of Mining.
If both institutions pursue the same activities, scarce resources risk being spread too thinly across overlapping mandates. In a country where funding is already tight, that would be a costly mistake.
Exploration and investment should complement each other, not compete.
The Geological Survey Department should focus on building Malawi’s geological knowledge base. Mamico should focus on structuring investments and ensuring that the country secures meaningful participation in mining ventures.
Clear roles. Clear strategy. Anything else invites confusion.
Nonetheless, Malawi cannot continue to present mining as a cornerstone of economic transformation while allocating minimal resources to the institutions responsible for building the sector.
If government truly believes mining can generate billions in export earnings and reshape the economy, then investment in exploration and geological capacity should be treated as a strategic priority rather than an afterthought.
